Religion's Place in Nursing - page 12
I often read Billy Graham's column and thought today's was particulary pertinent to our profession. I'm just curious as to your own personal thoughts and feelings on the matter. (Please, no... Read More
Apr 20, '04God is good all the time! It hurts my heart to see people in this world who are so unfortunate to not have ever felt the power of the love that Jesus Christ has for them. If you have ever felt His grace and mercy, you would know and understand how it is that Jesus died and rose from the dead. My prayers will be for you that you will one day be able to acknowledge the truthfulness and the fullness of Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of all believers!
Apr 20, '04Another one of his books is called mere christianity ...........................
Quote from duckboy20I would encourage whoever is an atheist out there to check info on this guy and read his book. Josh McDowell, if you have never heard of him he is now passionately involved in ministry but it all started, I think it was in college, when he set out to do a thesis on proving that Christianity is false and that it "couldn't stand up to the test of truth". What he found was an overwhelming amount of facts that to him led to one conclusion, that Jesus was the Son of God. Josh had been a staunt atheist his whole life till that time. Do a quick search and look him up. But please do so with an open mind because if you are determined that what he has to say is false you will not believe a word of it even if it is true. I think his book based off of that thesis is called "Evidence That Demands a Verdict"
Apr 20, '04For those of you that have not had a good experience in church ......... I am sorry. I only wish that people could experience what I have over the years. Though far from perfect, being we are humans, I have found love, support and an extended family in most places I have been. I know you can have peace in your life with out having jesus in your life but for me, knowing I have someone on my side that loves me for all my mistakes and sin without judgeing makes my life that much more wonderful. I find it amazing that someone would love me somuch as to make the choice to die for me. I know the concept of "Loves the sinner and hates the sin" is a hard concept to believe in ................ But for me it speaks volumes. I speak for myself, christ death on the cross was the greatest gift of his love for me.
Apr 20, '04Quote from ilovegameswhileYou said this soooo much better than I was able to......thank you very much and God bless you. How's California????God is good all the time! It hurts my heart to see people in this world who are so unfortunate to not have ever felt the power of the love that Jesus Christ has for them. If you have ever felt His grace and mercy, you would know and understand how it is that Jesus died and rose from the dead. My prayers will be for you that you will one day be able to acknowledge the truthfulness and the fullness of Jesus Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of all believers!
Apr 20, '04I don't think it matters what you believe. What matters is what your patient believes. If your patient has a strong belief in Christ and can have some comfort in the thought that they will rise from the dead, this is what you should support no matter what your personal feelings are. This will be easier for me since I too belive that Christ rose from the dead. If my patient does not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, I also will not impose my beliefs on them but will support them in their own belief so that they may have comfort at the time of death.
Quote from CHIRNI often read Billy Graham's column and thought today's was particulary pertinent to our profession. I'm just curious as to your own personal thoughts and feelings on the matter. (Please, no screaming at one another...this is not a debate.)
Dear Dr. Graham,
I'd like to be a Christian, but I have a hard time believing that Jesus rose from the dead. You see, I'm an intensive care nurse, and I know that once a person dies, that's the end. Maybe you can help me get past these doubts. -- Mrs. K.W.
Dear Mrs. K.W.:
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the most important event in all history -- and yes, incredible as it may seem, it really did happen.
In fact, it might interest you to know that one of the Gospels was written by a medical doctor (Luke). Like you, he knew that death is final and irreversible -- and yet he also gave us one of the most extensive accounts of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Why? Because he had thoroughly investigated the evidence for Jesus' resurrection for himself and he knew only one conclusion was possible: Jesus had come back from the dead.
Why is the resurrection important? Why did God raise Jesus from the dead? One reason was to prove that Jesus was who He said He was: the divine Son of God, sent from heaven to save us from our sins. The Bible says that He "was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:4). The resurrection sets Jesus apart from every other person who has ever lived.
But the resurrection points to an even greater truth: Death has now been conquered! The grave is not the end, but heaven's doors are now open! Jesus is alive, and He wants to come into your life today. Why not discover this great truth for yourself by turning to Christ today?
Edited to remove the dead link that stretched things past the edge of the screen - hope it makes it easier to read ! - Ratched
Apr 20, '04Quote from duckboy20actually there is a lot of proof such a flood never occurred, because no geologist has found any proof that a flood ever covered the entire world, and there should be lots of evidence since it would have been only a few thousand years ago. second, there is not enough water in the atmosphere, ice caps, or in the interior of the earth to cover the entire earth as described in the bible. third, if there were sufficient water in the air to flood the entire earth then noah and all of his little animals would have died. why? the pressure of the air with all of that moisture in the air would have made it impossible for him and all of little friend to breath. fourth, it is impossible to fit two of every animal on a boat that is approximately 450 feet long, and that doesn't include the food for them for months!you are right, nobody's opinion is invalid. i think things are just a little tense on here sometimes
psychomachia-question: could jesus have existed? if no, then why not. what about pharoah? if he lived is it possible that moses lived and the things about him could have been true? is it possible there was ever a "great flood" on the earth and noah had to build an ark? you even said you want a ticket on there. i know you were being sarcastic. there is evidence that water once covered almost all areas of the earth if not the whole earth, some say the earth was warmer and the glaciers melted, i say maybe the earth did warm up, the glaciers melted, and there was a great flood. could jesus be the man he said he is? if not tell me exactly why. i think there is a chance he was. you can very well say there is a chance he wasn't. it is all in what we choose to believe. i believe you have said in previous posts that the earth is dated far before the bible said it could have been. the method they use to date is carbon dating which has been disproven as many times as it has been proven. i think your opinion is as valid as mine we choose to believe what we choose to believe.
on the subject of jesus, well he could be the son of god, but maybe he was delusional too. his assertion that he was the son of god cannot be disproved, but it your responsibility to prove it if you wish other people to believe it. there is no reason for anyone to believe it without proof! otherwise, if you accept jesus' assertion that he was the son of god without any proof then you must also accept my assertion that "i am the son of god", as there is no difference in the claims being made or in the proof being offered that they are true. both claims are equally valid and acceptable.
finally, it is true that carbon dating may be inaccurate if the dates being measured are only a couple of hundred years old. but according to geologists the earth is billions of years old and according to the bible it is only a couple of thousand years old. that is a factor of millions, and there is no reason to believe that carbon dating would be so inaccurate.
how could a book that claims to be the unadulterated word of god have factual and logical inaccuracies? why have all the miracles ceased since the advent of modern science? the conclusion is clear and simple religion and mysticism can only thrive in the absence of logic and rational thought.
Apr 20, '04Quote from JaaamanWhat does this prove? That there are many source documents for the Bible? Because that is all it proves, it DOES NOT PROVE that it is FACTUALLY true!A (Not So) Brief Defense of Christianity
VI. The Old Testament
For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we DO have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"
A. The Scribe
The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from ca. 900 A.D.
B. The Masoretic Text
During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Masoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Masoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Masoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.
C. The Dead Sea Scrolls
In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea.
The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-66, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of non-biblical scrolls related to the commune found.
These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Masoretic tradition."
The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Masoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Masoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Masoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.
What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Masoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Masoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in (like our "honor and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light". This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah.
D. The Septuagint.
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Masoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the "LXX" because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.
In his book, Can I Trust My Bible?, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . Indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the world of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."http://www.northave.org/MGManual/defense2/WorldView.htm
Apr 20, '04Quote from sbic56LOL...hello fellow heathen.:chuckleI think I've been marked, by now, as an incorrigable heathen.
Apr 20, '04I am so happy to know that there are people out there who respect the religion of others! I think it is SOOO important in our profession. There are many, many, many religions out there! We each should support our patients, not judge them!
Quote from rmwinters1If my patient does not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, I also will not impose my beliefs on them but will support them in their own belief so that they may have comfort at the time of death.
Apr 20, '04I am an eclectic wiccan...I think I like the sound of that U-U church...I was raised baptist, began my pagan ways in high school, converted to the catholic religion in my early 20's, resumed my pagan ways in my mid 20's...
GreenFaeryWitchQuote from Owneyangelicaparki,
How dare you say that nobody should use the brain that God gave us. How dare you say that anyone who chooses not to have the same relationship with Jesus that you do has an opinion that is invalid. The Commandment that I have the most problem with is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me." This is nothing more than an exclusivity clause, leading us to a religious monopoly. Like most major religions we are to exclude any other form of spirituality, or humanitarianism. Like most modern religeous thinkers I use the brain that God gave me to follow whatever spiritual guidance I can from anywhere.
Excellent posts. I archived both of them in a Word file.
Jaaaman does a good job of attesting to the probable accuracy of the Old Testament. I believe psychomachia does have valid points with the likely inaccuracies in the New Testament. Some years ago, my minister pointed out the problems with the New Testament in a sermon entitled, "The Gospel Truth."
If anyone has read this far, you may indulge me by reading the following which I posted on the Pope Decalares Feeding Tubes, ect. string several days ago.
The Only Good Religion
I was born into a Roman Catholic family of six children. I went to public school for kindergarten, since my local Catholic school did not have one then went to first grade in one Catholic school and second grade in another, since my family had moved. When we moved again, it was too late to enroll me in the local Catholic school for that year, so I went to public school for third grade. My mother decided to leave me in public school and let me attend Catechism, since she did not want me to have to switch to a fifth school in as many years. Going to public school for third grade was a mixed blessing for me. I learned to print in second grade, but in those days cursive handwriting was not taught until third grade in Catholic . So I was behind in handwriting. I was, however, way ahead of all of the other children since I had learned to read by phonics, and not by word recognition, as everyone in public schools had been. When the teacher found out how well I could read, she would frequently have me read for the class. This helped to deal with some of my diminished self-esteem at having to learn cursive handwriting. I never did get really good with cursive, so I still print much of the time to this day.
I must say that I probably got the last of the good religious education from the Catholic Church. I felt one of the most attractive aspects of Catholicism was its immutability. "These are the rules. If you don't like them, find another church." The mass was conducted every day, and we were required to attend every Sunday. The mass was spoken or sung in Latin. Our missal was like an operatic libretto, giving us subtitles to follow this deliberately "dead" language. We were taught that there were venial sins, and mortal sins. Venial sins could be forgiven through prayer, but we could only be absolved of mortal sins by confessing them to a priest. We could not take communion with mortal sins on our souls. We were only required to take communion once a year, so the confessional line was usually quite long just before Easter Sunday. Catholic marriages were for life, there being no divorce, but separations were not forbidden. Neither party could ever re-marry. If I wanted to find out what the mass would be like, all I had to do was to look in my missal. The rules were well defined and understandable by most of us in high school.
After I graduated from high school (and Catechism), the church adopted "Vatican II." Everything changed. The altar was turned around and the mass was performed in English, taking away the art and beauty of Latin, and leaving it subject to the ever-changing characteristics of a dynamic, living language. I was on shaky ground with the church when I came back from Viet Nam. We now had guitar masses and other silly attempts to "modernize" the mass. One mass I attended the priest said, "I am supposed to ask you to all shake hands and greet each other, but I know that in twenty minutes, you will all be trying to run each other over in the parking lot, so we will dispense with that." One of my sisters had had a Catholic wedding. After a few years of fighting they went to the priest and were granted an annulment, so she was allowed another Catholic wedding. All of the rules have changed so much that I feel that I did not leave the church, but that the church left me.
I went to Viet Nam as an agnostic, if not an atheist. On our way to Pearl Harbor I was impressed with our navigator's ability to pinpoint the exact minute of our arrival in the middle of the largest ocean in the world. I believe it also renewed my faith in God. My faith was buttressed the night when we survived a typhoon in an area where four ships exactly like mine went down during WWII with the loss of hundreds of lives. I said a prayer, "God, get me through this night, and I will never doubt you again."
Our ship set a record for her type in the number of miles steamed during that cruise. We did not lose a man. We survived several combat engagements where we could watch the death that we inflicted on the enemy. We watch F4 Phantoms covering hillsides with napalm, and people being dismembered an immolated on the beach by our five inch guns. God did bring us all back alive. So my belief in God had been restored, but I felt that there was no church that fulfilled my religious needs.
I did go back to mass occasionally and still do to this day. Each mass seems sillier than the last, although I do like the greetings and blessings that we exchange. I did even take communion once, but only because I was at a wedding where there were no other Catholic friend in attendance who would know that I had not confessed mortal sins to a priest. One is not supposed to take Holy Communion with mortal sins on one's soul. I did say my confession directly to God, (like a Protestant)and said my Act of Contrition and penance. I may one day go to confession and thus reconcile myself with the church, but this would require me to abide by some rules that I cannot live with. I believe I would have no problem convincing my wife to re-marry me in a Catholic ceremony since she might agree to raise any children Catholic.
My wife had a pan hysterectomy in her twenties so birth control and child rearing are of little consequence. My most serious issue with the church is their exclusivity clause, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before thee." The Catholic Church forbids believing in any other entity or force, which could influence life on earth or in the hereafter.
For a number of years I hung out with a group of born again Christians. These folks were the finest examples of practicing what Jesus taught us--how to help each other. What troubled me was when one of them told me that regardless of how much good you do on earth, if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you will not get into Heaven. The Catholics do not say that. They say that once you have been confirmed you must follow the rules, but those that have never heard the word you could get into Heaven, if you've been good.
Since my wife is not Catholic we have had many discussions about Purgatory. Purgatory is something that the Catholic Church has over all other Christians. I find it hard to believe that there is not some form of only paying for our sins by how bad they are. I simply cannot believe that since I have lived in sin all these years in a non-Catholic marriage, I will be burning in the eternal fires of Hell right next to Adolph Hitler. It might be nice to have conversations with Adolph, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, Andre Chouchescu, and Sadaam Hussein, but not forever. If I died today I would proudly stand before Saint Peter -- and he might even send me to Purgatory for a few weeks to pay for my sins. He might not, because I believe he will consider the amount of "hell on earth" I have already suffered. After I have paid my dues I would be able to walk through the Pearly Gates into the Promised Land.
I first heard of Unitarians from the folksinger Utah Phillips, who said that he had performed in their churches in Utah, a state that has very few public performance venues. In the late eighties I discovered Unitarian Universalism. A friend took us to First Friday, a monthly social event at our local U-U Church. We went to three or four of them before I discovered that Stan, another First Friday attendee, was the MINISTER. A few weeks after that I saw a letter to the editor of our local paper which said that our state governor was a member of the U-U Church, which does not require a belief in God! So we decided to check it out. At the first service a lady stood in the pulpit and said that there was no testament of faith. My wife and I signed the book that day. We could believe anything we wanted, or so we thought. After hanging around for a while we learned we could not believe anything we wanted, but that we were obligated, as thinkers, to find faith that we could believe and follow.
Life's road has led me to be a religious eclectic. Every recent poll has shown that most modern Catholics "pick and choose" those precepts of Catholicism they choose to live by, especially in the area of birth control (thank God, he even created many of THEM with the ability to think). So I CAN be a practicing Catholic, MY way. But I can also be a Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, Shinto, Voodoo, Zoroastrian, Druid, Pagan, Nature Worshiper, Native American, First Nation Member, Ignostic, Agnostic, Humanist, Atheist, or member of any other religion or belief which has something good to offer me.
Most of my religion today is Roman Catholic. I wear a St. Christopher medal on my dog tag chain and pray to him frequently, since he has pulled me through so many perilous journeys. I believe in St. Christopher in spite of the fact that a few years ago Vatican scholars decided that he, like St. Nicholas, might never have existed. But I also practice a lot of First Nation/Native American beliefs. Last year I did a sun dance in my back yard to fend off intermittent showers for our yard sale. It worked. I frequently pray to Earth, other planets, sun, moon and stars. Even in my Catholic prayers I remember to thank God for giving me the wisdom to think.
I believe life's journey continues down the road of the best religion. The best religion forces me to find and follow the best of ALL religions.
Go Now In Peace
Apr 20, '04Quote from rmwinters1Very eloquently put, Rita.I don't think it matters what you believe. What matters is what your patient believes. If your patient has a strong belief in Christ and can have some comfort in the thought that they will rise from the dead, this is what you should support no matter what your personal feelings are. This will be easier for me since I too belive that Christ rose from the dead. If my patient does not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, I also will not impose my beliefs on them but will support them in their own belief so that they may have comfort at the time of death.
I consider myself Neo-Buddhist, but I have nothing but respect for all religions. I have wonderful friends who send me emails worshipping God and Jesus, and I love to read them, because they convey how I feel about my spirituality.
Faith is universal. Our Gods (and Goddesses) may be a little different- some of us may not believe in anything but themselves.......... and that's ok too!
As Rita said, as nurses we are here to respect our patient's individual wishes. I will always do that, regardless of our different backgrounds/ethnicity/beliefs.
Love thy neighbour........... be he black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc etc.
How dull would it be if we were all alike?
Apr 20, '04Quote from caroladybelleEloquent post--you speak both my beliefs and my opinion on faith-preaching. Thank you.I do not believe in Christ as I do not believe in original sin, thus a G-d that would require a sacrifice of his son has no meaning for me. It also would be wrong for me to worship a G-d that would behave in such a manner. Mine is a G-d of loving, caring and concern, not of ill doing.
Therefore Mr.Graham's arguments are moot.
Therefore I must pass on your "know Christ" offer as I have done so many times before...when offered so many "proof discussions" before.
So Luke was a doctor, where was he licensed and what was his specialty? Many MDs of his time bled people to death trying to cure illness. Evidence has shown that people were buried alive by accident, up into the last 100 years, due to being in comas and diagnosed as "dead". Doctors marked people as witches and listed them as possessed by demons, when they had seizures. Doctors in the middle ages as well as theologians debated as to whether women even had human souls. They identified birth marks as marks of evil. Such "respected" doctors as Freud had Cocaine habits, just as some MDs do today. MDs in the early 20th century listed seizures in women as being caused by nymphomania and had their genitals mutilated to "cure" them.
So saying Luke was a Physician means very little when one reviews physicians in the great scheme of history.
Faith is a thing of belief first and foremost. Not requiring proof, whatsoever.
Would that those that preach great Faith actually respected those of other Faiths, enough not to play "prove it to me" games with the Faith that they value and espouse because there is little that can be "proven" undoubtably in this world.
Apr 20, '04Quote from CNM2BThere is one that has been running for close to a year.Ya'll, how about a thread for Christians to debate, unite and pray for each other? What do you think?