RE: Self-policing opportunity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum



Message

ginger -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 16, 2008 7:09:55 PM)

Beliefs, they can burn you , support you, tear you apart, mislead you, change you, alter your perspective , and prejudice can arise from the attachments to them. We all have them. Some of us even believe that our beliefs are better than others. Still more will kill ,maim and rape on the basis of a belief, feeling justified, even glorified in the handing out of judgements according to their beliefs. Christians are no less capable of acts of piety and humility than those of other beliefs. History reveals that christians have been capable of the most  heinous crimes to humanity , driven by those beliefs. Without the balancing effects of a community of clear thinking ( often atheist ) humanitarian people , many communities , even nations , would fall under the spell  of popular beliefs. It is as well that we all understand the power of belief. wether a belief can claim to be the truth is a matter for believers to consider, a worthy passtime.
I prefer to just get on with the business of life, attempting , even striving , to give believers a place , while holding on to my own views ( and beliefs )
Hitchins is a great read, especially his more recent work  ,somewhat mirroring that of Dawkins. I recommend their work to all believers.



ginger -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 16, 2008 7:14:05 PM)

correction,
that should have read Hitchens, appropos his book "god is not great, how religion poisons everything"



Jon Newman -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 16, 2008 7:22:13 PM)

Hi Rod,

Thanks for the help with the article you cited before.  Do you have any interest in doing a critical analysis of it on your blog?  I'd be interested in reading your thoughts about it.



Sebastian Asselbergs -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 16, 2008 8:10:22 PM)

Rod, I don't mind at all - I called it a "vent" which it was; - not an attempt at debate and I should have kept it out of here.

I do take umbrage at your contention that one has to be of a certain lofty academic theological position before having a coherent discussion on these subjects (not rants!) You can not equate theology with science. And I have had some very deep and enlightening conversations with Tom Harpur, a Canadian author with a decent theological pedigree (google him) - quite an oddball at times, but very very well educated. He could not call himself an expert......

And finally: I have found what I am looking for. I was never burned - I learned a lot from my past. I appreciate the thought though.

Time to make an exit.....



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 16, 2008 8:42:52 PM)

Like I said.  You are a good egg Bas. 

Jon and Bas. You guys might want to consider reading or listening to "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.  I read it last year, but it is also available on iTunes if you like audiobooks.  It is a fascinating treatment of the topic and really good mind food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
---
Add:  The book is actually a transcript of a series of radio broadcasts Lewis made while the Brits were getting the crap bombed out of them in WWII.  It was said that the Lewis held a lot of people together with these broadcasts during a very dark time.
----
Bas, I'm sorry you left the church, but I'm glad you are content with your faith.  I have no doubts you will continue your trip at a good pace.  Jon, you are reading my mind on the blog idea.  I'm just not sure anyone really gives a rats A$$ what I think about spirituality in medicine.  I'd need to avoid interjecting too much editorial into it as I am prone.  I will give it a shot and see what happens.

I'm working on a pain-related blog entry on the heels of my recent but tragically brief adventures with SS. I hope doesn't reflect just how unrefined my current approaches are on this topic[:(], but I have really enjoyed the blogging process so far. 



kiwi PT -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 17, 2008 9:40:58 AM)

Whoops... I wandered onto the wrong forum.  Could someone please direct me to rehab edge?



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 17, 2008 1:39:40 PM)

Bas, you definitely have a point about the Catholic Church.  You are now discussing more the institution versus Christianity.  I definitely hear you on the institution.  The Church has issues.  The Catholic Church has been responsible for many horrible crimes in its history.

Crevidence, I've tried to explain why I disagree with your statement.  I'm sorry you don't see any intelligence in my response.  I correlate your statement kind of comparable to this statement... pig farmers are accustomed to the stench of pigs therefore pig farmers are less likely to practice daily personal hygiene activities.  (Give me just a a breath of room because I'm going to take away the softness and again create a stronger generalization:  Christians tolerate lack of evidence and are able to believe Virgin births and Resurrections therefore they are more likely to have a greater tolerance for unproven interventions such as a FRS lumbar segment.)  I honestly do not think that it is reasonable to assume that one's religious affiliation hampers our profession.  Apathy should be where your concern should lie.



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 17, 2008 5:24:54 PM)

My analogy could totally kick your analogy's ass.



proud -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 3:14:15 PM)

Strange thread. Read it. Agree 100% with Crev.....

Always respect SJ...in fact look for SJ's response on any topic around here. But Crev HAD and HAS a legit point and I saw no disrespect in the comments.

Simple.



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 4:05:51 PM)

Beauty of this thing we call the internet...we're all entitled to an opinion.



proud -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 4:57:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasOrtho

Beauty of this thing we call the internet...we're all entitled to an opinion.


In life, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I am still scratching my head as to why the comments invoked an emotional response.

It's pretty clear that our life experiences and beliefs can impact our practice. Positively or negatively.....



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 5:59:40 PM)

Proud...I'm not sure how you gleaned emotion from my post.  Italics = emphasis, not emotion.  I couldn't agree more with your last post.



proud -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 7:23:38 PM)

No, I agree. I meant the original comment from Crev, This one:

quote:

Her personal quote is more worrisome to me than the endorsement.

"Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,
Colossians 3:23, NASB"

This quote leads me to believe that potentially for that person, lord > professional ethics.  Depending on the word of the lord, she has a get out of jail free card if her morals/ethics don't jive with the sound, well thought out ethics (developed by men) of our profession.  This could potentially be bad for the profession.  It could be worse for the profession/society if many follow suite.

It is my understanding that many people who believe in the lord also believe in virgin births, resurrections etc..  This seems like a gateway to detecting acupuncture meridians and palpating FRS lumbar segments.

It is surprising in the 21st century an "academic" would have a quote like that.


I actually find this comment from Crev spot on. Then I notice what I consider some emotional responses on the thread. Often, religion will invoke an emotional response....which ironically is slightly in tune with what Crevidence was suggesting in the first place.

I especially agree with para 2. In my experience( my experience anyway), the Chiropractic world is full of bizzare individuals. It seems the historical, pseudo science principles within, attract a......certain individual. It's easier for the....certain individual.....to be lured by bizzare concepts over science. Note that I said easier, not a given....

But what makes someone attracted to quakery? Are they unethical people to start? I Think the answer is clearly no.  But I'm willing to bet their life experiences has lead them to be more prone to "believe"....so to speak....

How's that?



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 7:37:52 PM)

Well, maybe that female gene in me that reared its head amongst the males.  :) 

Next a bit of sarcasm with probably truth mixed in... All sorts of factors besides religious beliefs can impact our clinical decision-making.  We could get into the differences between males and females and how those differences impact clinical practice.  Heck, our birth order might be a huge factor.  Wait... and our personalities and our preferred personality characteristics - those factors should always be considered too.  And genealogy...  my Grandpa's family came from WAY down South and apparently never really settled in one location and moved from abandoned house to abandoned house.  That gypsyish, redneck bloodline must definitely affect my decision-making.  Hmmm... what else?  I obviously got the rebel in me from my other Grandpa who fled his country to come here and while here he did some work for Al Capone running booze from Detroit to Chicago.  And of course, whether we are practicing full time or part time must be a variable too.

We could make all sorts of broad, generic statements that could one by one piss off everyone.



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 7:48:24 PM)

I really wish someone could explain to me how that above post doesn't insinuate Christians and how that above post doesn't insinuate Christians can believe anything.  And at the same time, how come the majority here don't seem to see that in a backhand way what Crevidence posted would be offensive to Christians?  I'm not sure if I truly felt "emotional," but I know my gut reaction was more, how the heck can anyone say anything like that?  I wasn't going to let a comment like that go unchallenged and because I challenge it, now I'm "emotional."  There isn't any evidence out there that because Christians believe in those types of difficult concepts that Christians have a propensity to believe most anything. 



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 7:57:32 PM)

I think, as with my brief conversation with Bas on Peter, some issues are irreconcilable even between two very educated individuals.  With this in mind, we may do well to leave this be.  I side strongly with SJ on this issue, but that is unlikely to change one think Crev or Proud thinks.

I understand SJ reaction to a point. We in the Christian community have delt out plenty of crap to others over the years in the name of God.  Conversely, we've put up with quite a bit as well.  I don't think it's anyone's place to tally the current balance of things.  Let's shake hands and move on.



proud -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 8:18:32 PM)

SJ,

quote:

There isn't any evidence out there that because Christians believe in those types of difficult concepts that Christians have a propensity to believe most anything.


This is true. But I don't believe that was the intent of Crevidence's comment. At least that is not how I saw it.

No question the more black and white your thoughts are in everyday life....the more lured by hard evidence one might be in clinical practice. And as such, the opposite can hold true. The more "open" one is to believe in things that lack hard evidence, the more "open" one might be in their clinical practice.

I'd be willing to bet a PT that believes martians are living amongst us would be more likely to practice something like craniosacral therapy( I hesitate to use martians as an example lest I be accused of equating martians to religion....I'm not). 

But I agree with Rod here. I side more with Crev but that is just two opposing thoughts. No big deal. Interesting discussion though. 

I'll move onto the winging scapula thread in the ortho section I think.

Thanks all.



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 8:29:48 PM)

Okay... I'm understanding that a bit better.  I am not wise to the various types of religions.  I will apologize because my upbringing was that Lord = God (of which there is only one) and that there was only one Virgin birth and only one Resurrection.  I did not mean to be over confident - obviously that was a mistake on my part because of my lack of specific knowledge of other religions.  I apologize.

Good clarification on putting the two assumptions head to head.  I now understand my misinterpretation more fully.

The correct assumption, maybe... but at the same time, it's apples to oranges.  Other things without evidence may not have the same level of importance/value/meaning to an individual compared to the various religious concepts that have little to no supportive evidence.  Faith and religion would generally be considered significant, personal factors in one's life... other things without evidence such as the example of palpating FRS lumbar segments have no personal significance.  When one makes decisions, I would think that the personal relevancy of the material being analyzed and believed would also be a factor to consider.  I may be wrong though.



Jon Newman -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 18, 2008 10:12:12 PM)

I'm glad we got that cleared up and it is clear that there was simply miscommunication.  That said, SJ recently posed this question

quote:

And at the same time, how come the majority here don't seem to see that in a backhand way what Crevidence posted would be offensive to Christians?


I don't think it's helpful to go out of one's way to be offensive but sometimes it's hard to convey something without offending someone and of course there is a difference between being wrong and being offensive.  That said, I found your comments (that follow) both wrong and offensive.  More specifically, the first point you made was wrong and the second one offensive (ok, it was a question and not a point.)

quote:

Our nation was built on Christian principles.  Obviously there has to be value within those principles for the founding fathers of this nation to actually use Christian principles.


quote:

Jon, if one doesn't believe in Christ, do you think the principles would be the same?


Is it your opinion that only Christians could have concieved of our constitution/government because of some sort of superior reasoning skills or special communication with the right diety?  If so, do you see how that could be offensive to not just a few people?



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 19, 2008 6:45:14 AM)

Jon, Jon, Jon...

With regard to my first point being wrong... how do you explain?

quote:

 "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."


The "under God" portion was voted in and added in the 1950's by Eisenhower.  It was supposedly added because (from Wikipedia): 
quote:

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.


"In God we trust" is on the back of U. S. paper bills and engraved on the front of U.S. coins.

Lincoln mentions God in the Gettysburg Address.

The thought of Christians possessing superior reasoning skills or special communication never entered my mind.  I happen to know quite a few pretty stupid Christians.  I would certainly hope my comments were not misconstrued as Christians have superiority over all.  I was thinking of the examples above to support my statement, mainly 2 every day things.  And the main reason I did make that statement is that there seems to be a large majority here that do not seem to value Christian principles.  (Of course, now I'm offending you again, Jon, because you believe principles don't need to be qualified as "Christian."  My perspective is that yes, that qualification is needed because then clearly the rationale behind the principles is because of Christ.)  Should I apologize to you because I am knowingly offending you?

With regard to religion, speaking of religion or religious beliefs always offends someone.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode

0.078