The Hallelujah Health Tip Issue #594: Open Letter to President Obama Regarding Health Care ReformApril 7, 2009
(5) Open Letter To President Obama Regarding Health Care Reform Subject: Health Care problems in the United States and proposed legislation to correct them. I come to you as a citizen of these United States of America to offer a solution to a problem that is not only causing tremendous suffering to our people . . . . but is also bankrupting our great nation. Mr. President, I believe you sincerely want an answer to this dilemma; therefore I submit the following for your consideration: 1. “Health is the largest failing business in America,” says Prof. E Cheraskin, M.D. of the University Of Alabama School Of Medicine. “The health care crisis is slowly bankrupting our citizens and our country. Costs for health care are climbing four times faster than the rate of inflation. In 1992 we spent $817 billion on health care while 1993 is expected to cost $942 Billion. During 1994 it is projected to reach $1 Trillion and by the turn of the century $2 Trillion.” 2. Current ‘Health Care’ costs in America have reached $2.4 Trillion today and forecast to double in coming years. The current ‘Health Care’ plan being advanced will not stop this constant increase in medical costs! Actually, it will accelerate the rise in health care costs as more and more people are brought into a system that has already proven to be a failure. 3. We are a sick nation even though we are spending more to treat sickness per capita than any other nation on earth! If our present methods of treating disease worked, wouldn’t our people be healthier? 4. These somber facts are strong proof that the health of the American people is not getting better regardless of how much money is poured into so-called ‘Health Care’. Also, these statistics reflect the poor health of our population even though over 70% of Americans already possess health insurance. Obviously, possessing health insurance does not produce health. 5. Calling the proposed legislation a ‘Health-Care’ plan is a misnomer! It would be more accurate to call the proposed plan a ‘Disease-Care’ plan. The plan being advanced will not produce health! On the contrary it will continue to perpetuate the same status quo of sickness and ill health we currently face while costing ever more money. 6. Countries that have ‘Health Care’ plans similar to the one you are proposing (e.g., Canada, France, & England) have found it to be an increasingly more costly plan that just doesn’t provide quality health care for all citizens. In fact it has become so costly; they now having to ration health care. 7. Our present health-care system is geared to rewarding sickness and its treatment! It allows people that create their physical problems by improper diet and lifestyle to be rewarded when they get sick by providing them with health care, often paid for by those who take care of their bodies so as to maintain health. National Health Care would also allow physicians, hospitals and drug companies to make ever-larger sums of money because the plan promotes and perpetuates the treating of symptoms rather than the prevention of disease. 8. The proposed plan will increase our taxes and put even more money into a failing health-care system that, by any standards, offers ridiculously high costs and pathetically poor results. It would be hard to imagine another American institution that offers less value per dollar. This is a system we must reform rather than expand, if we truly want to improve the health of the American people! Mr. President, If we are going to correct the above problems, A RADICAL CHANGE IS NECESSARY – and it must be radically different from the wasteful, profit-oriented program that governs our current health-care system. HERE IS WHAT I PROPOSE: 1. Shift our emphasis to the prevention of disease rather than the current goal of merely trying to treat disease after it has occurred. The public must be told how to alter their diet and lifestyle so that disease is not created in the first place. This would be true health-care reform. The proposed health-care reform is doomed to failure because it is geared to treating the symptoms of sickness rather than the causes of sickness! Dr. John Knowles, president of the Rockefeller Foundation says: “The next major advance is the assumption of individual’s responsibility for one’s own health and a necessary change in lifestyle.” With knowledge, people would then be able to intelligently choose between a system that promotes wellness through proper diet and lifestyle versus a system that promotes disease and rewards an industry with a vested interest in sickness and disease. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare says: “. . . it has become clear that only by preventing disease rather than treating it later, can we hope to achieve any major improvement in the nation’s health.” 2. Educate the people! True health-care will not result by rewarding people who continue their disease-producing diet and lifestyles. Any health-care plan that does not have as its primary goal the education of the American people as to what they should and should not eat to produce wellness will fail! It will only produce more physical problems and larger expenditures of money. Almost all sickness and disease is caused by improper diet and lifestyle, not by bacteria, viruses or inherited genes as we have been led to believe. The way to restore wellness to the American people is to teach them how to eat and live so as to create wellness. Dr. Beverly Winikoff of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York said: “...There is a widespread and unfounded confidence in the ability of medical science to cure or mitigate the effects of such diseases once they occur. Appropriate public education must emphasize the unfortunate but clear limitations of current medical practice in curing the common killer diseases. Once hypertension, diabetes, arteriosclerosis or heart disease are manifested, there is, in reality very little that medical science can do to return a patient to normal physiological function. As awareness of this limitation increases, the importance of prevention will become all the more obvious.” 3. Any new health-care plan must be one that encourages health by rewarding wellness and those who maintain health! Most disease is self-induced by improper diet and lifestyle, thus, almost all sickness and disease is preventable by a diet and lifestyle that produces wellness. Any health-care plan that does not place the responsibility for maintaining health on the individual will fail. If you feel it is necessary to continue paying for the medical treatments of those who refuse to change their diet and lifestyle, then please reward those who maintain wellness. A voucher system would be a tremendous incentive. Allot every American citizen X number of dollars a year for health care. If they don’t spend it, then send them a check each year for the amount not used. 4. Products that produce ill health should be heavily taxed. Let those who manufacture unhealthy products and those who consume them help pay for the physical problems they produce. Some examples: Beverage alcohol . . . . Saturated Fat . . . . Refined Sugar . . . . etc. If we are going to improve the health of our people, we must warn them of the consequences of eating and drinking things that harm them. Calling the public’s attention to the harm these products are doing by placing a tax and warning labels (as we currently do on tobacco) certainly would be a positive step. 5. Government-controlled institutions and agencies must not be allowed to use their power to promote sickness and disease! Some examples: Medical Schools – Of the 129 state-accredited medical schools in America, only 29 require a course in nutrition. Doctors receive an average of less than 2 hours of nutritional training in medical school. This is outrageous! Doctor’s must become promoters of health through diet and lifestyle rather than just the treater of disease! The American Dietetic Association (ADA) is responsible for approving all meals served in our public schools, jails, hospitals and to the elderly. An evaluation of these meals would show that they are high in sugar, saturated fat, table salt and white flour, while being of little nutritional value. An evaluation of the meals served in our nation’s hospitals would reveal a menu that produces sickness rather than helping in the healing of those hospitalized. Each year, the USDA buys over $4 billion worth of surplus foods (with tax payers’ money), which it donates to the nation’s schools. Ninety percent of the USDA surplus foods are eggs, high-fat cheeses, butter, ground pork, ground beef and whole milk. If the USDA had gone out intentionally to obtain foods that would destroy the health of our children they could hardly have done better. This use of taxpayers’ money to produce sickness in the youth of America is intolerable and must be stopped. We are spending taxpayers’ money to subsidize farmers to grow tobacco instead of vegetables. Then we use taxpayers’ monies for anti-smoking public education campaigns and the treatment of cancer and heart disease caused by smoking. Why are we funding both sides of the war on cancer? If we are going to use government subsidies to encourage farmers to grow specific crops, these should be healthful products, not products that cause disease. Even the Food Stamp program needs to be re-evaluated. While not allowing Food Stamps to be used for the purchase of alcohol and tobacco, Food Stamps can be used to purchase products loaded with sugar and oozing with saturated fat. Thus tax payer money is being used to pay for the very foods that create disease and then tax payers monies are used in an attempt to restore health to those same individuals who got sick consuming products paid for by tax payers. Please consider my own personal experience of regaining my health by doing something as simple as making a change in my diet: Thirty-three years ago I was told I had colon cancer. Mother had experienced terrible results going the medical route for her colon cancer before me. Because of mother’s bad experience going the medical route (at her death I felt the treatments were the cause of her death not the cancer), I went looking for an alternative approach to my cancer. At the advice of a friend, I adopted the diet God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and almost immediately started to get well. Within less than a year my cancer was gone. TRUE HEALING IS SELF-HEALING as we give the body the nutrients it needs to rebuild its immune system and self healing mechanisms so that the body can do what God designed it to do, which is heal itself. And my personal experiences are not unique! Seventeen years ago I birthed a ministry called Hallelujah Acres. At the same time I started promoting a diet based on the diet God gave Adam and Eve, as found in the Bible in Genesis 1:29. It is called The Hallelujah Diet. Millions have embraced the diet and tens of thousands have written to tell me that they have recovered from over 170 different physical problems, including terminal cancers, by simply applying the principles I teach. One gentleman, after only six months on The Hallelujah Diet, reported a 60 pound weight loss, the disappearance of 28 different physical problems, and he was able to eliminate all medications. I have trained approximately 9,000 Health Ministers (including 61 medical doctors) to help me take our Health Message to the world, and we currently have Hallelujah Acres trained Health Ministers in every state in the United States as well as in 46 foreign countries. I have also appeared on ABC Nightline, the 700 Club, Trinity Broadcasting, as well as all major TV networks, The Food Network, and Fox News. Personally, I have been on The Hallelujah Diet for over 33 years and have used it to recover completely not only from colon cancer, but also a hemorrhagic stroke, without any help from the medical community. Nor have I had a single cold or the flu since making the diet change in 1976. Currently I am 75 years of age and can physically do anything I could do as a 20 year old, and am referred to as the Energizer Bunny. President Obama, please investigate what I have shared. Because of the financial profits from treating disease, you will find very limited support from those in the Medical Community for objective research into the benefits of preventative health care based on changes in diet and lifestyle. Modern science is learning much about the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, and the ways that vitamins, minerals and enzymes help our bodies to heal naturally. But still most medical research is confined to looking for answers from pharmaceutical drugs, new surgical procedures, radiation, chemotherapy, etc. – in other words, things from which the medical establishment can make profit. It’s sad to say, but the medical establishment has a tremendous financial incentive in keeping our population dependent on expensive surgical procedures, costly prescriptions and over-the-counter remedies consumed on a daily basis by sick people. On the other hand, it’s great when people are able to cure themselves simply by eating a natural diet and exercising. Sadly, our present health-care system is geared to providing what is most profitable for physicians, drug companies and hospitals, not to what is best for the people of our great land. This, Mr. President, is what must be changed if you wish to implement TRUE HEALTH CARE REFORM! CONCLUDING THOUGHTS – If the health of the American people is to be improved and if the staggering cost of health care is to be curbed, we must look outside the current and established systems. And I am not advocating the use of synthetic vitamins, herbs or homeopathic remedies as the solution. These substances, along with all drugs, only deal with symptoms caused by improper diet and lifestyle. What I am saying is that almost all physical problems are caused by putting into our body substances they were never biologically designed to handle . . . substances that are actually toxic to the body. Just as our automobile will not function properly if the wrong fuel is placed in the gas tank, neither will our bodies function properly if the wrong foods are put into them. Almost all physical problems (other than accidents of course), can be eliminated and perfect health maintained by proper diet and lifestyle! My experience has even shown that when people adopt the diet and lifestyle we teach, most mental and emotional problems also disappear. “WHEN PEOPLE LEARN AND PRACTICE ‘THE ART OF RIGHT LIVING,’ PHYSICIANS MAY GO BACK TO THEIR FARMS AND WORKSHOPS.”Dr. Isaac Jennings, 1830 If I can be of assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to call on me. My life is committed to restoring our country to health and sane living. Sincerely for a Healthy America! Rev. George Malkmus, Lit.D.Founder of Hallelujah AcresShelby, North CarolinaEmail: george@hacres.comWeb: www.hacres.com (EDITOR’S NOTE: If you agree with the contents of this letter, and feel strongly about the need to truly reform our health care system, please see that this letter gets in the hands of as many people as possible, especially people with the power to make these necessary changes in our approach to health care – your Senators and Representatives, talk show hosts, and your local newspapers for starters.)
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Homeschooled two-armed pitcher
This story of a homeschooled boy who was ambidextrous supports my theory that homeschooling is better for allowing children to excel at things they would not be encouraged to do in public school.
NYC Switch Pitcher Confounds Batters, Umpires
Saturday, June 21, 2008
NEW YORK — Ambidextrous pitcher Pat Venditte can confound hitters — and umpires — when he's on the mound.
The umps working a game Thursday night between the Class-A Staten Island Yankees and the Brooklyn Cyclones had nothing to go by when Venditte made his professional debut, less than two weeks after getting drafted in the 20th round by the Yankees.
He pitched the ninth, and after retiring two batters and allowing a single, a switch hitter stepped to the plate for Brooklyn. That's hardly unusual. But it becomes intriguing against Venditte, a switch pitcher.
Things got a tad dizzying when designated hitter Ralph Henriquez, who had taken his on-deck circle swings as a lefty, entered the batter's box from the right side.
Venditte put his specially made glove (it has six fingers, two webs and fits on both hands) on his left hand, and got ready to pitch right-handed.
Henriquez then changed his mind and switched sides of the plate, because a batter sees the ball sooner when it is thrown by a pitcher using the opposite hand.
So Venditte shifted his glove to the other hand.
Then it happened again.
And again.
And again.
Apparently unsure of how the rules handle such an oddity, the umpires didn't stop the cat-and-mouse game until Venditte walked toward the plate and said something while pointing at Henriquez. Umpires and both managers then huddled and the umps decided the batter and pitcher can both change sides one time per at-bat, and that the batter must declare first.
The ruling favored the pitcher, since he gets to declare last.
About seven minutes after he first stepped in, Henriquez struck out on four pitches as a righty against a right-handed Venditte and slammed his bat in frustration. Staten Island won, 7-2.
"It's probably been a long, long time since he's seen a right-hander as a righty," Venditte said. "I think in that situation, I had the upper hand because he wasn't used to that. It's been a long time since he'd come in the game as a switch hitter and faced a righty as a righty."
It wasn't completely new to Venditte, who went 9-3 with a 3.34 ERA and seven saves as a senior at Creighton.
"That same thing happened my sophomore year against Nebraska," he said. "But in that situation he got to hit off me right-handed, and I faced him lefty. He hit a line drive to center but it got caught, so I lucked out."
It's unclear what the MLB rule book says on the matter. While it's clear that both a batter and a pitcher are allowed to change sides once, the umpire's decision that the batter must declare first remains debatable.
"We're waiting on an official ruling on it," Staten Island media relations director John Davison said.
Pat Venditte Sr., who raised his son as ambidextrous from the age of 3, said the Missouri Valley Conference had rules in place for such a situation. There, the pitcher had to show which arm he was going to pitch with.
"My first thought was, isn't there a rule to cover that?" asked Venditte Sr., by phone from Nebraska.
Justin Klemm, executive director of the Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation, said his organization was working with major league baseball to remedy the lack of a clear rule.
"We don't want to rush to any interpretation beyond what is in our manual," Klemm said, referring to the minor league umpire manual. "Obviously what's in our manual doesn't cover every situation. We want to be as fair as possible, but we're going to do that in a timely manner."
It's all happening because Venditte Sr. decided to experiment with his son at age 3, having him first kick footballs with both feet, then punting with both, and finally throwing with both hands. He and his 3-year-old son played long toss — pitchers mound to plate — with each arm.
Because his son was home-schooled, Pat Jr. wasn't dissuaded from doing something that might have been seen as "unnatural," his father said. By the time he started playing organized baseball, his son was already better with both hands than most kids were with either.
"By the time he played at 7, people were in awe," Venditte Sr. said. "It spurred us on. He was doing things that people found unique and different."
Some scouts have noticed that Venditte throws harder from the right side — near 90 mph as opposed to about 80 from the left side — and have decided that means he's naturally a righty.
Not so fast, his father said.
"The reason he's not as fast from the left is he drops his arm from the left side to get more movement, he throws a sweeping slider," he said. "The coach at Creighton thought it was more difficult to hit. He has equal arm strength. He can stand at home plate and throw it out of the ballpark from both sides."
The Yankees have enough faith that Venditte can bring his ambidextrous pitching game to the majors to draft him not once, but twice. They drafted him in the 45th round after his junior year as well, but Venditte chose to return to Creighton.
Venditte is not the first professional pitcher to throw with both hands, although he may be the first in the modern era with the potential to regularly switch arms.
Greg A. Harris, who pitched for Cincinnati, Montreal, San Diego, Texas, Philadelphia, Boston and the Yankees from 1981-95, was a righty throughout his career. He pitched from the left side for two batters in the second-to-last game of his career
NYC Switch Pitcher Confounds Batters, Umpires
Saturday, June 21, 2008
NEW YORK — Ambidextrous pitcher Pat Venditte can confound hitters — and umpires — when he's on the mound.
The umps working a game Thursday night between the Class-A Staten Island Yankees and the Brooklyn Cyclones had nothing to go by when Venditte made his professional debut, less than two weeks after getting drafted in the 20th round by the Yankees.
He pitched the ninth, and after retiring two batters and allowing a single, a switch hitter stepped to the plate for Brooklyn. That's hardly unusual. But it becomes intriguing against Venditte, a switch pitcher.
Things got a tad dizzying when designated hitter Ralph Henriquez, who had taken his on-deck circle swings as a lefty, entered the batter's box from the right side.
Venditte put his specially made glove (it has six fingers, two webs and fits on both hands) on his left hand, and got ready to pitch right-handed.
Henriquez then changed his mind and switched sides of the plate, because a batter sees the ball sooner when it is thrown by a pitcher using the opposite hand.
So Venditte shifted his glove to the other hand.
Then it happened again.
And again.
And again.
Apparently unsure of how the rules handle such an oddity, the umpires didn't stop the cat-and-mouse game until Venditte walked toward the plate and said something while pointing at Henriquez. Umpires and both managers then huddled and the umps decided the batter and pitcher can both change sides one time per at-bat, and that the batter must declare first.
The ruling favored the pitcher, since he gets to declare last.
About seven minutes after he first stepped in, Henriquez struck out on four pitches as a righty against a right-handed Venditte and slammed his bat in frustration. Staten Island won, 7-2.
"It's probably been a long, long time since he's seen a right-hander as a righty," Venditte said. "I think in that situation, I had the upper hand because he wasn't used to that. It's been a long time since he'd come in the game as a switch hitter and faced a righty as a righty."
It wasn't completely new to Venditte, who went 9-3 with a 3.34 ERA and seven saves as a senior at Creighton.
"That same thing happened my sophomore year against Nebraska," he said. "But in that situation he got to hit off me right-handed, and I faced him lefty. He hit a line drive to center but it got caught, so I lucked out."
It's unclear what the MLB rule book says on the matter. While it's clear that both a batter and a pitcher are allowed to change sides once, the umpire's decision that the batter must declare first remains debatable.
"We're waiting on an official ruling on it," Staten Island media relations director John Davison said.
Pat Venditte Sr., who raised his son as ambidextrous from the age of 3, said the Missouri Valley Conference had rules in place for such a situation. There, the pitcher had to show which arm he was going to pitch with.
"My first thought was, isn't there a rule to cover that?" asked Venditte Sr., by phone from Nebraska.
Justin Klemm, executive director of the Professional Baseball Umpire Corporation, said his organization was working with major league baseball to remedy the lack of a clear rule.
"We don't want to rush to any interpretation beyond what is in our manual," Klemm said, referring to the minor league umpire manual. "Obviously what's in our manual doesn't cover every situation. We want to be as fair as possible, but we're going to do that in a timely manner."
It's all happening because Venditte Sr. decided to experiment with his son at age 3, having him first kick footballs with both feet, then punting with both, and finally throwing with both hands. He and his 3-year-old son played long toss — pitchers mound to plate — with each arm.
Because his son was home-schooled, Pat Jr. wasn't dissuaded from doing something that might have been seen as "unnatural," his father said. By the time he started playing organized baseball, his son was already better with both hands than most kids were with either.
"By the time he played at 7, people were in awe," Venditte Sr. said. "It spurred us on. He was doing things that people found unique and different."
Some scouts have noticed that Venditte throws harder from the right side — near 90 mph as opposed to about 80 from the left side — and have decided that means he's naturally a righty.
Not so fast, his father said.
"The reason he's not as fast from the left is he drops his arm from the left side to get more movement, he throws a sweeping slider," he said. "The coach at Creighton thought it was more difficult to hit. He has equal arm strength. He can stand at home plate and throw it out of the ballpark from both sides."
The Yankees have enough faith that Venditte can bring his ambidextrous pitching game to the majors to draft him not once, but twice. They drafted him in the 45th round after his junior year as well, but Venditte chose to return to Creighton.
Venditte is not the first professional pitcher to throw with both hands, although he may be the first in the modern era with the potential to regularly switch arms.
Greg A. Harris, who pitched for Cincinnati, Montreal, San Diego, Texas, Philadelphia, Boston and the Yankees from 1981-95, was a righty throughout his career. He pitched from the left side for two batters in the second-to-last game of his career
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Misery
An article from Aish.com:
The sobering fact is that serenity and joy are natural states for us all. Fear not. Practiced regularly, these strategies vastly improve our odds of attaining despair.
Many people innocently believe that all they have to do is sit back, coast through life, and misery will come to them. Nothing could be further from the truth! The sobering fact is that serenity and joy are natural states for us all. Just observe a child at play, yourself on a favorite vacation, or anyone absorbed in creative activity. As our minds clear of clutter and negative thinking, a profound sense of peace and contentment often emerges. Does this mean there's no hope? Absolutely not! The strategies outlined below, practiced regularly, vastly improve our odds of achieving misery.
1. CLING TO ENTITLEMENT
You are perfectly entitled to feelings of entitlement. It is your birthright to expect unfailing attention, loyalty, respect, and subservience from others. Contemplate the inherent, self-evident unfairness of anyone having something you want. Strive to see compromise, accommodation, patience, and responsibility, as somehow relevant only to "the other guy." In general, be aware that life owes you and that you were put on this planet to collect.
2. IT'S ALL PERSONAL
Malicious intent is always present if you just look carefully enough. This is particularly true regarding family members. Suppose your spouse overlooks one of your preferences. Seize the opportunity to view this as conclusive proof that you don't really matter to them and probably never have. If your children dawdle at bedtime, see them as viciously spiteful and yourself as a sorry excuse for a parent. It's really very simple. Ignore nothing, and always assume evil intent. Remember, if you don't take things personally no one will do it for you.
3. FOCUS ON PROBLEMS
There is really very little sense in having problems if you don't focus on them. It's crucial therefore to keep careful track of all your problems and constantly review them. Nurture the attitude that you can't really move on to anything unless everything is resolved first. Remember also that there is no solution without a problem, if you look closely enough. Always resist the temptation to ponder where problems go when you don't think about them.
4. MAGNIFY
Too often people cheat themselves out of misery by maintaining perspective. This is both needless as well as extremely counter productive. Why would anyone ever want to think of themselves as "just human" when "fatally flawed" and "irredeemably warped" are available? Similarly, when recalling past mistakes, why stop at instructive regret when paralyzing guilt is within reach? Sure it requires a bit of effort, but the payoff can be enormous. Just imagine the benefits of eventually believing that your negative thinking actually reflects reality.
5. EXPECT CATASTROPHE
It is critical to remember that really terrible things can occur at any moment. Let's start with the body. Begin by paying close attention to changes in bodily sensation, no matter how trivial. Next, let your imagination run wild. Anything involving flesh-eating bacteria or intestinal parasites will usually do the trick. People sometimes protest that their bodies feel perfectly fine. Not to worry! Think "Silent Killers." Feeling perfectly fine places you squarely at risk for these. Of course, there is no reason to stop at personal health issues. The range of potential catastrophe is vast. For example, there are suitcase bombs, encroaching asteroids, global recession, pandemics, killer bees, and so on. Simply use your imagination to craft a realistic sense of impending doom. Savor the pride you'll feel on your death bed knowing that nothing ever caught you by surprise.
6. JUST SAY "NO THANKS" TO GRATITUDE
Gratitude is to misery what Kryptonite is to Superman. All the hard work you've invested in misery will go down the drain if you start fiddling around with gratitude. A zero tolerance policy is very much in order. This is very challenging, however, as life runs rampant with opportunities for gratefulness. Begin, therefore, by thoroughly discounting all the good in your life as a "given." Next, focus your mind on the many ways in which life continues to disappoint you. At an advanced level, you can even learn to see the bad in the good. For instance, should you get a big raise you could immediately focus on the tax implications. Eliminate gratitude from your life and misery will be right around the corner.
A final word. The beauty of misery is that the more you share it with others, the more you wind up having. So share generously. After all, misery loves company.
Published: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The sobering fact is that serenity and joy are natural states for us all. Fear not. Practiced regularly, these strategies vastly improve our odds of attaining despair.
Many people innocently believe that all they have to do is sit back, coast through life, and misery will come to them. Nothing could be further from the truth! The sobering fact is that serenity and joy are natural states for us all. Just observe a child at play, yourself on a favorite vacation, or anyone absorbed in creative activity. As our minds clear of clutter and negative thinking, a profound sense of peace and contentment often emerges. Does this mean there's no hope? Absolutely not! The strategies outlined below, practiced regularly, vastly improve our odds of achieving misery.
1. CLING TO ENTITLEMENT
You are perfectly entitled to feelings of entitlement. It is your birthright to expect unfailing attention, loyalty, respect, and subservience from others. Contemplate the inherent, self-evident unfairness of anyone having something you want. Strive to see compromise, accommodation, patience, and responsibility, as somehow relevant only to "the other guy." In general, be aware that life owes you and that you were put on this planet to collect.
2. IT'S ALL PERSONAL
Malicious intent is always present if you just look carefully enough. This is particularly true regarding family members. Suppose your spouse overlooks one of your preferences. Seize the opportunity to view this as conclusive proof that you don't really matter to them and probably never have. If your children dawdle at bedtime, see them as viciously spiteful and yourself as a sorry excuse for a parent. It's really very simple. Ignore nothing, and always assume evil intent. Remember, if you don't take things personally no one will do it for you.
3. FOCUS ON PROBLEMS
There is really very little sense in having problems if you don't focus on them. It's crucial therefore to keep careful track of all your problems and constantly review them. Nurture the attitude that you can't really move on to anything unless everything is resolved first. Remember also that there is no solution without a problem, if you look closely enough. Always resist the temptation to ponder where problems go when you don't think about them.
4. MAGNIFY
Too often people cheat themselves out of misery by maintaining perspective. This is both needless as well as extremely counter productive. Why would anyone ever want to think of themselves as "just human" when "fatally flawed" and "irredeemably warped" are available? Similarly, when recalling past mistakes, why stop at instructive regret when paralyzing guilt is within reach? Sure it requires a bit of effort, but the payoff can be enormous. Just imagine the benefits of eventually believing that your negative thinking actually reflects reality.
5. EXPECT CATASTROPHE
It is critical to remember that really terrible things can occur at any moment. Let's start with the body. Begin by paying close attention to changes in bodily sensation, no matter how trivial. Next, let your imagination run wild. Anything involving flesh-eating bacteria or intestinal parasites will usually do the trick. People sometimes protest that their bodies feel perfectly fine. Not to worry! Think "Silent Killers." Feeling perfectly fine places you squarely at risk for these. Of course, there is no reason to stop at personal health issues. The range of potential catastrophe is vast. For example, there are suitcase bombs, encroaching asteroids, global recession, pandemics, killer bees, and so on. Simply use your imagination to craft a realistic sense of impending doom. Savor the pride you'll feel on your death bed knowing that nothing ever caught you by surprise.
6. JUST SAY "NO THANKS" TO GRATITUDE
Gratitude is to misery what Kryptonite is to Superman. All the hard work you've invested in misery will go down the drain if you start fiddling around with gratitude. A zero tolerance policy is very much in order. This is very challenging, however, as life runs rampant with opportunities for gratefulness. Begin, therefore, by thoroughly discounting all the good in your life as a "given." Next, focus your mind on the many ways in which life continues to disappoint you. At an advanced level, you can even learn to see the bad in the good. For instance, should you get a big raise you could immediately focus on the tax implications. Eliminate gratitude from your life and misery will be right around the corner.
A final word. The beauty of misery is that the more you share it with others, the more you wind up having. So share generously. After all, misery loves company.
Published: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Original Sin
Most people agree that the original sin was when Eve at the forbidden fruit. But Dr. Sedler, in his book "When to Speak Up and When to Shut Up," sets forth the theory that Adam was present when Eve decided to sin and he did not speak up to advise her against it. He says that this is the original sin--the fact that Adam said nothing when his companion was making an unwise choice.
It is our responsibility as Christians to speak up when our friends and family members are making wrong choices. We must, however, do it with an attitude of love and humility.
It is our responsibility as Christians to speak up when our friends and family members are making wrong choices. We must, however, do it with an attitude of love and humility.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Yield or Resist?
An article from Aish.com, insight into scripture from a Jewish perspective:
Is it a Jewish value to yield or to resist?
The El Al security official at the L.A. airport eyed my mother-in-law suspiciously. She couldn't imagine what the problem was. The security official looked hard at my mother-in-law, studied her passport, looked up again at her face, gazed down again at her passport, and finally called over his colleague.
"Look at this woman," he commanded. "Her passport says she is almost 90 years old. Can that be true?"
Like the El Al security official, I have always been perplexed by my mother-in-law, Evelyn.
Visiting Jerusalem at the age of 88, she made daily pilgrimages to the Western Wall, trekking up 135 steps. Even while celebrating her 90th birthday this week, she still walks with a bounce in her stride.
Even more mystifying is her universal popularity. Everyone she meets -- no matter how distant from her in age, geography, or background -- adores Evelyn. This includes: her young Persian neighbors; my religious friends; the Hispanic plumber and his wife; the single, 40-something daughter of her best friend; and a young Israeli mother in Austin, Texas, who met Evelyn five years ago and continues to call her every Friday to wish her "Good Shabbos."
One Sunday Evelyn didn't answer the phone when we expected her to be home. "I was at a graduation," she explained the next day. "It was the son of this big Italian family. I was the only non-relative invited."
What is the secret of my mother-in-law's universal popularity?
THE KEY
Recently, at a class on the mitzvah of lighting Shabbat candles, I discovered the answer.
Many Jewish women follow the custom of lighting one Shabbat candle for every member of her family, honoring not only Shabbat, but every member of the family.
Honoring other people is a core value in Judaism. Ethics of the Fathers, our 2,000-year-old guide to interpersonal relationships, proclaims: "Let the honor of your student be as dear to you as your own, the honor of your friend like the honor of your Rabbi, and the honor of your Rabbi as much as the honor of Heaven." As for marriage, the Talmud directs: "A man should love his wife as much as he loves himself, and honor her more than himself."
Take a step back and allow another's reality to prevail.
How does one actually honor other people? The key is to validate their reality. Usually our own reality is so intrinsic to us that we dismiss other people's reality as insignificant, flawed, or warped. To take a step back and allow another's reality to prevail permits the other to feel his/her own importance. This is the essence of giving honor.
And this is why everyone loves Evelyn: she honors them by validating their reality. When she is with the family of her eldest son Bob, who moved to San Francisco in the 60s and joined the counter-culture, she appreciates their life style, the quaintness of their Mill Valley home with its hot tub, and her daughter-in-law's talents in making pottery and jewelry. When she is with her second son Leib Yaacov in Jerusalem, she embraces our religious ways and admires our choices. When her youngest son Jamie, who heads a foundation for the arts, takes her to a formal dinner honoring Pavarotti, she enjoys the elegance of the event, hobnobs with the stars, and appreciates Jamie's kindness in bringing her. No wonder everyone adores her!
Such validation requires much yielding of one's own propensities and choices, and poses a challenge to the ego. It would require a physicist to validate the reality of his teenage son who gets bad grades in science and who spends his evenings strumming his guitar. It would require a wife who's an expert at multi-tasking to have patience for her husband who can't be left to both take care of the kids and remember to take the roast out of the oven on time.
CHANUKAH
Validating another's reality is the key to honoring others, which is the key to peace in the home and is the inner depth of the mitzvah of lighting Shabbat candles.
How different are the candles of Chanukah! Chanukah is the holiday of standing up boldly for your beliefs, of not yielding an inch.
Chanukah commemorates the historical victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks. The Jewish rebellion started in the year 167 B.C.E., after a century of Greek cultural hegemony and increasing assimilation. In the village of Modiin, Greek forces commanded the Jews to make offerings to a pagan god. One submissive Jew complied. This so enflamed the elderly priest Mattathias that he sprang up, killed the servile Jew, and led his five sons and handful of followers into the hills for a protracted guerilla war against the Greeks and their Hellenistic Jewish cohorts.
The message of Chanukah is: Hold onto your religious convictions, never submit to the assimilated majority, no matter how numerous or sophisticated they are, and fight for your ideals.
So which is the Jewish value: to yield or to resist?
The salient difference between the lights of Shabbat and the lights of Chanukah are their location. Shabbat candles are always lit inside the home. Chanukah candles should ideally be lit outside, by the entrance to the house. (This is how we still do it in Jerusalem.) Only when the Jews were exiled to the Diaspora did safety dictate moving the Chanukah lights inside, but even there they are to be kindled in a window where they can be seen from outside. The mitzvah of lighting the Chanukah candles is to publicize the miracle of the oil.
While the Shabbat candles illumine the private domain of the home, the Chanukah candles are a statement to the public domain.
Yield in the home, but stand up and fight in the public realm.
Similarly, the place for yielding is in the home, within the family. The place for standing up for one's convictions is the public realm.
Unfortunately, we often reverse the two: A Jewish college student who is afraid to stand up to his politically correct friends and defend Israel refuses to yield to his mother's entreaties to wear a tie to his grandparents' anniversary party. A Jewish woman who sits mutely during coffee break while her co-workers joke about "cheap Jews," finds her tongue and waxes eloquent in her self-defense when her husband asks her to put the kids to bed on time.
The place to stand up for your beliefs is the public realm. In the home, yield, yield, yield.
If you are chronically tardy, and your spouse likes to arrive everywhere 15 minutes early, yield. Ask yourself, "What is his/her reality?" and validate it.
If you are a spendthrift and your spouse is frugal, yield. Ask yourself, "What is his/her reality?" and validate it.
If your idea of a vacation is a five-star hotel, and your children want to vacation in the national parks, ask yourself, "What is their reality?" and validate it. Then decide what is best for the whole family.
But in the public realm, when Judaism, Jews, or Israel are under attack, stand up and fight! That's the lesson of Chanukah.
Happy 90th birthday, Mom!
Published: Sunday, December 02, 2007
Is it a Jewish value to yield or to resist?
The El Al security official at the L.A. airport eyed my mother-in-law suspiciously. She couldn't imagine what the problem was. The security official looked hard at my mother-in-law, studied her passport, looked up again at her face, gazed down again at her passport, and finally called over his colleague.
"Look at this woman," he commanded. "Her passport says she is almost 90 years old. Can that be true?"
Like the El Al security official, I have always been perplexed by my mother-in-law, Evelyn.
Visiting Jerusalem at the age of 88, she made daily pilgrimages to the Western Wall, trekking up 135 steps. Even while celebrating her 90th birthday this week, she still walks with a bounce in her stride.
Even more mystifying is her universal popularity. Everyone she meets -- no matter how distant from her in age, geography, or background -- adores Evelyn. This includes: her young Persian neighbors; my religious friends; the Hispanic plumber and his wife; the single, 40-something daughter of her best friend; and a young Israeli mother in Austin, Texas, who met Evelyn five years ago and continues to call her every Friday to wish her "Good Shabbos."
One Sunday Evelyn didn't answer the phone when we expected her to be home. "I was at a graduation," she explained the next day. "It was the son of this big Italian family. I was the only non-relative invited."
What is the secret of my mother-in-law's universal popularity?
THE KEY
Recently, at a class on the mitzvah of lighting Shabbat candles, I discovered the answer.
Many Jewish women follow the custom of lighting one Shabbat candle for every member of her family, honoring not only Shabbat, but every member of the family.
Honoring other people is a core value in Judaism. Ethics of the Fathers, our 2,000-year-old guide to interpersonal relationships, proclaims: "Let the honor of your student be as dear to you as your own, the honor of your friend like the honor of your Rabbi, and the honor of your Rabbi as much as the honor of Heaven." As for marriage, the Talmud directs: "A man should love his wife as much as he loves himself, and honor her more than himself."
Take a step back and allow another's reality to prevail.
How does one actually honor other people? The key is to validate their reality. Usually our own reality is so intrinsic to us that we dismiss other people's reality as insignificant, flawed, or warped. To take a step back and allow another's reality to prevail permits the other to feel his/her own importance. This is the essence of giving honor.
And this is why everyone loves Evelyn: she honors them by validating their reality. When she is with the family of her eldest son Bob, who moved to San Francisco in the 60s and joined the counter-culture, she appreciates their life style, the quaintness of their Mill Valley home with its hot tub, and her daughter-in-law's talents in making pottery and jewelry. When she is with her second son Leib Yaacov in Jerusalem, she embraces our religious ways and admires our choices. When her youngest son Jamie, who heads a foundation for the arts, takes her to a formal dinner honoring Pavarotti, she enjoys the elegance of the event, hobnobs with the stars, and appreciates Jamie's kindness in bringing her. No wonder everyone adores her!
Such validation requires much yielding of one's own propensities and choices, and poses a challenge to the ego. It would require a physicist to validate the reality of his teenage son who gets bad grades in science and who spends his evenings strumming his guitar. It would require a wife who's an expert at multi-tasking to have patience for her husband who can't be left to both take care of the kids and remember to take the roast out of the oven on time.
CHANUKAH
Validating another's reality is the key to honoring others, which is the key to peace in the home and is the inner depth of the mitzvah of lighting Shabbat candles.
How different are the candles of Chanukah! Chanukah is the holiday of standing up boldly for your beliefs, of not yielding an inch.
Chanukah commemorates the historical victory of the Maccabees over the Greeks. The Jewish rebellion started in the year 167 B.C.E., after a century of Greek cultural hegemony and increasing assimilation. In the village of Modiin, Greek forces commanded the Jews to make offerings to a pagan god. One submissive Jew complied. This so enflamed the elderly priest Mattathias that he sprang up, killed the servile Jew, and led his five sons and handful of followers into the hills for a protracted guerilla war against the Greeks and their Hellenistic Jewish cohorts.
The message of Chanukah is: Hold onto your religious convictions, never submit to the assimilated majority, no matter how numerous or sophisticated they are, and fight for your ideals.
So which is the Jewish value: to yield or to resist?
The salient difference between the lights of Shabbat and the lights of Chanukah are their location. Shabbat candles are always lit inside the home. Chanukah candles should ideally be lit outside, by the entrance to the house. (This is how we still do it in Jerusalem.) Only when the Jews were exiled to the Diaspora did safety dictate moving the Chanukah lights inside, but even there they are to be kindled in a window where they can be seen from outside. The mitzvah of lighting the Chanukah candles is to publicize the miracle of the oil.
While the Shabbat candles illumine the private domain of the home, the Chanukah candles are a statement to the public domain.
Yield in the home, but stand up and fight in the public realm.
Similarly, the place for yielding is in the home, within the family. The place for standing up for one's convictions is the public realm.
Unfortunately, we often reverse the two: A Jewish college student who is afraid to stand up to his politically correct friends and defend Israel refuses to yield to his mother's entreaties to wear a tie to his grandparents' anniversary party. A Jewish woman who sits mutely during coffee break while her co-workers joke about "cheap Jews," finds her tongue and waxes eloquent in her self-defense when her husband asks her to put the kids to bed on time.
The place to stand up for your beliefs is the public realm. In the home, yield, yield, yield.
If you are chronically tardy, and your spouse likes to arrive everywhere 15 minutes early, yield. Ask yourself, "What is his/her reality?" and validate it.
If you are a spendthrift and your spouse is frugal, yield. Ask yourself, "What is his/her reality?" and validate it.
If your idea of a vacation is a five-star hotel, and your children want to vacation in the national parks, ask yourself, "What is their reality?" and validate it. Then decide what is best for the whole family.
But in the public realm, when Judaism, Jews, or Israel are under attack, stand up and fight! That's the lesson of Chanukah.
Happy 90th birthday, Mom!
Published: Sunday, December 02, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sunshine and Cancer
This article from Mercola.com.
If vitamin D3 levels among populations worldwide were increased, 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year, according to researchers from the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD).
This includes nearly 150,000 cases of cancer that could be prevented in the United States alone.
The researchers estimate that 250,000 cases of colorectal cancer and 350,000 cases of breast cancer could be prevented worldwide by increasing intake of vitamin D3, particularly in countries north of the equator.
The study examines the dose-response relationship between vitamin D and cancer, and is the first to use satellite measurements of sun and cloud cover in countries where blood serum levels of vitamin D3 were also taken.
Serum vitamin D levels during the winter from 15 countries were combined, then applied to 177 countries to estimate the average serum level of a vitamin D metabolite among the population.
An inverse association between serum vitamin D and the risk of colorectal and breast cancers was found.
Protective effects began when 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (the main indicator of vitamin D status) ranged from 24 to 32 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). In the United States, late winter 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ranged from 15 to 18 ng/ml.
Previous research has suggested that raising levels to 55 ng/ml was actually optimal to prevent cancer, the researchers said.
To increase your vitamin D3 levels, the researchers recommended a combination of dietary methods, supplements and sunlight exposure of about 10 to 15 minutes a day, with at least 40 percent of your skin exposed.
If vitamin D3 levels among populations worldwide were increased, 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year, according to researchers from the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD).
This includes nearly 150,000 cases of cancer that could be prevented in the United States alone.
The researchers estimate that 250,000 cases of colorectal cancer and 350,000 cases of breast cancer could be prevented worldwide by increasing intake of vitamin D3, particularly in countries north of the equator.
The study examines the dose-response relationship between vitamin D and cancer, and is the first to use satellite measurements of sun and cloud cover in countries where blood serum levels of vitamin D3 were also taken.
Serum vitamin D levels during the winter from 15 countries were combined, then applied to 177 countries to estimate the average serum level of a vitamin D metabolite among the population.
An inverse association between serum vitamin D and the risk of colorectal and breast cancers was found.
Protective effects began when 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (the main indicator of vitamin D status) ranged from 24 to 32 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). In the United States, late winter 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ranged from 15 to 18 ng/ml.
Previous research has suggested that raising levels to 55 ng/ml was actually optimal to prevent cancer, the researchers said.
To increase your vitamin D3 levels, the researchers recommended a combination of dietary methods, supplements and sunlight exposure of about 10 to 15 minutes a day, with at least 40 percent of your skin exposed.
Unanswered/Answered Prayer
What happens when God doesn't answer our prayers?
An article from Aish.com.
Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, the Days of Awe, are the time of year when we talk with God.
Yes, we are supposed to talk with God all year long, but we really feel it on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. These are days devoted to prayer. They are days when we struggle to express our thoughts, our hopes, and our fears to the Almighty. These are days when we try to engage the Master of the Universe in conversation.
We hope that the Almighty smiles on us, grants us our requests. But here is a particularly searing question that we must confront at this time of year: What happens when He doesn't? What, if anything, is left of our relationship with God then?
Imagine a woman who prays deeply and sincerely for the success of an operation on her severely ill 6-year-old daughter. The time comes -- and the operation fails. The girl dies under the surgeon's knife. What is a mother to feel after this? What would we feel?
In the swirl of emotions following a tragedy, one feels indescribable anguish -- the terrible, searing pain of overwhelming loss. But sometimes, one feels something else too.
Betrayal.
At first, the feeling might be unidentifiable, hidden underneath layers of sadness and pain. But then, slowly it might emerge. "How could God have done this? We trusted in Him. We prayed with all our might. We placed our every hope in His Hands. And He let this happen..."
How can we expect to love God if one feels betrayed by Him?
And these questions -- spoken or unspoken -- then provoke a completely new swirl of emotions. Fear. Guilt. "Who am I angry at?", we ask ourselves, "God? How can I be angry with God?"... We're not supposed to be angry with God. We're supposed to feel that He's compassionate, loving. One cannot easily "make up" with someone one feels has betrayed him; how, then, can we expect to love God if one feels betrayed by Him?
CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE
I don't know if there is a single, definitive, way out of this problem. Perhaps the answer differs from person to person. But I think a change in perspective can begin to point in a useful direction:
We can ask a fundamental question: When one prays to God for something -- be it for health, happiness, or even for a new car -- what is it that one hopes to achieve? What does one hope the prayer will accomplish?
On one level, the answer is obvious. One hopes that God will bequeath to him that which he prays for. If one prays for his daughter's recovery from a terrible illness, for example, one obviously hopes that this will somehow help her recover. But there is, I think, a deeper aspect to the meaning and purpose of such a prayer.
Allow me to relate a story a friend of mine tells about one of his early childhood experiences. This is how he relates the event:
"When I was about four years old, I awoke from my nap one day, ventured out of my room, and walked through the house. No one was there. I tentatively called out for my mother, but there was no reply. Slowly, a realization dawned on my little mind: 'It's finally happened. My parents have abandoned me...'
"I raced to the phone on the kitchen wall and dialed the operator. 'That's it,' I told her, between sobs, 'my parents are gone; I'm all alone now.' The operator stayed on the phone with me until, sure enough, my mother did come home. She had slipped out for a few minutes to pick up some milk. It was, however, an experience I shall never forget."
Now, if you will, perform a little mental exercise. Imagine for a moment that you are four years old. Your parents are everything to you. Consider the terror you would feel thinking they have abandoned you, leaving you to somehow manage life on your own. Of course, as an adult, you know that this would never happen. However, as a child, you would not have known this. The threat would have seemed real. How does that terror feel?
Now, proceed further. Imagine you are six years old. Climbing on a chair, you have found your mother's cookie jar on the kitchen counter. It's filled with chocolate-chip cookies. You approach your mother, cookie jar in hand, and ask her for one. Now consider the following two scenarios:
SCENARIO A
Your mother kindly and lovingly looks at you and says: "No, dear, I'm sorry. It's not time for a cookie now; it's too close to dinnertime. As much as I know you'd like to have it, I can't give it to you right now."
SCENARIO B
Your mother has had a very hard day, and is at wit's end when you have approached her. She stares at you a little coldly for a minute. Then she turns and walks away. "I don't care," you hear as her voice trails away, "Your little cookie doesn't matter much to me at all right now. If you want it, take it."
As a 6-year-old, which of the two scenarios would you rather have faced? In the first, you are denied the cookie; but you get the loving attention of your mother. In the second, you get your cookie -- but a gnawing pit swells in your stomach. In some small way, your mother has abandoned you...
Let us continue. Imagine that you are older now. You and your spouse live in a small apartment. Unfortunately, your financial situation is bleak; you cannot afford to buy yourselves even a small, used car. Even routine grocery shopping has become an ordeal. Your husband's employer, however, has hinted he may be in line for a raise -- enough, perhaps, to allow you to afford a vehicle.
So you pray to God with added devotion, and ask for this raise to come through. We, of course, have no way to directly perceive how God accepts our prayers -- but for the sake of argument, let us imagine that you could somehow "hear" His response. Imagine, again, two scenarios:
SCENARIO A
God responds to you: "My child, I want you to know that I am with you. I know the stress you feel due to your financial situation, and I feel your anguish. But for reasons I cannot now reveal to you, it is not within the scheme of things for your husband to receive this raise."
SCENARIO B
God responds to you: "In the past, you have not displayed enough faith for Me to take your concerns seriously right now. I choose not to involve Myself in your plight; I shall allow events to unfold as they would on their own. If your husband's employer decides to give him the raise, then so be it; but I will not be involved."
Again, which would we prefer to hear? The first response firmly but gently denies our request, whereas the second leaves open the possibility that we will indeed get the money. But in the second response, we also feel the hard, cold shock of God abandoning us. If we do get the money, what price will we have paid?
And now, finally, consider a last situation. A man suffering the effects of leukemia is wheeled into the operating room for a last-chance operation to save his life. The doctors give him barely fifty-fifty odds. As he feels the anesthesia begin to take effect, he realizes quite clearly that this may be his last moments of consciousness on Earth. He opens his heart to God and prays that he will survive.
Imagine that in his last fleeting seconds of consciousness, this man would be privileged to hear God's response to him. Consider, again, two scenarios:
SCENARIO A
God responds to him: "My child, I want you to know that I am very close to you now. As you drift into sleep, I shall stay by your side, and I shall not leave you.
"I feel your anguish, and I know how much you want to live. But I must tell you that now is the time I have chosen for you to end your stay on Earth. You cannot understand why. But now, My child, is the time."
SCENARIO B
God responds to him: "You have not made yourself worthy of My becoming intimately involved in your affairs. The doctor who is operating on you is as competent as any; I shall leave your fate in his hands."
In his final waking moments, which response would the man rather hear? Is it not conceivable -- even probable -- that he would prefer God's intimate and loving denial of his request, than God's cold withdrawal from his life? If so -- if this is what we would feel were we in this man's situation -- then we may have discovered something truly profound about our values: An intimate relationship with our Parent in Heaven is something we would trade anything for -- even life itself.
When we truly open our hearts to God, we make God real in our lives.
This, then, says something important about why we pray, and what we get out of the experience.
Yes, it is true that we pray for the cookie, the car, or indeed, for our very lives. But these are only the apparent purposes of our prayers. For when we truly open our hearts to God -- when we genuinely reach out to Him in our times of need -- we make God real in our lives. We build a relationship with Him.
As in any good relationship, feelings tend to reciprocate. Our connection with God is no different. When we reach out to Him, He reaches back to us. Each word of prayer becomes a brick in the edifice of that relationship. And when all is said and done, we value that relationship more than anything.
I think that when we truly understand this, we have given ourselves the tools to deal with the possibility that God may not, in fact, grant us the object of our prayers. For we can realize that the more profound our need, the more deeply we have fashioned a relationship with our Creator by telling Him about it. Thus, whether we receive what we have "asked" for or not, we have certainly not been "betrayed" by God. A refusal can be loving, too. And the relationship we have built by asking has not gone away.
We live in a flesh and blood world, and this is a difficult truth to internalize. Our needs are real to us. We really do want the cookie or the car; our heartfelt desire for the object of our prayer is not simply imagined. However, if we pause for a moment, we can focus on the deeper things, too. Through our heartfelt communication, we have drawn closer to God, and He has drawn closer to us. And as we sense this closeness, we may find that we have not only achieved a deeper appreciation of prayer -- and of these Days of Awe -- but we have also gained newfound strength to deal with whatever response God ultimately bequeaths us.
Listen to Rabbi Fohrman's free audio classes at www.jewishtextstudy.org
Excerpted from "INSPIRING DAYS" published by K'hal Publishing in conjunction with The Afikim Foundation
An article from Aish.com.
Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, the Days of Awe, are the time of year when we talk with God.
Yes, we are supposed to talk with God all year long, but we really feel it on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. These are days devoted to prayer. They are days when we struggle to express our thoughts, our hopes, and our fears to the Almighty. These are days when we try to engage the Master of the Universe in conversation.
We hope that the Almighty smiles on us, grants us our requests. But here is a particularly searing question that we must confront at this time of year: What happens when He doesn't? What, if anything, is left of our relationship with God then?
Imagine a woman who prays deeply and sincerely for the success of an operation on her severely ill 6-year-old daughter. The time comes -- and the operation fails. The girl dies under the surgeon's knife. What is a mother to feel after this? What would we feel?
In the swirl of emotions following a tragedy, one feels indescribable anguish -- the terrible, searing pain of overwhelming loss. But sometimes, one feels something else too.
Betrayal.
At first, the feeling might be unidentifiable, hidden underneath layers of sadness and pain. But then, slowly it might emerge. "How could God have done this? We trusted in Him. We prayed with all our might. We placed our every hope in His Hands. And He let this happen..."
How can we expect to love God if one feels betrayed by Him?
And these questions -- spoken or unspoken -- then provoke a completely new swirl of emotions. Fear. Guilt. "Who am I angry at?", we ask ourselves, "God? How can I be angry with God?"... We're not supposed to be angry with God. We're supposed to feel that He's compassionate, loving. One cannot easily "make up" with someone one feels has betrayed him; how, then, can we expect to love God if one feels betrayed by Him?
CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE
I don't know if there is a single, definitive, way out of this problem. Perhaps the answer differs from person to person. But I think a change in perspective can begin to point in a useful direction:
We can ask a fundamental question: When one prays to God for something -- be it for health, happiness, or even for a new car -- what is it that one hopes to achieve? What does one hope the prayer will accomplish?
On one level, the answer is obvious. One hopes that God will bequeath to him that which he prays for. If one prays for his daughter's recovery from a terrible illness, for example, one obviously hopes that this will somehow help her recover. But there is, I think, a deeper aspect to the meaning and purpose of such a prayer.
Allow me to relate a story a friend of mine tells about one of his early childhood experiences. This is how he relates the event:
"When I was about four years old, I awoke from my nap one day, ventured out of my room, and walked through the house. No one was there. I tentatively called out for my mother, but there was no reply. Slowly, a realization dawned on my little mind: 'It's finally happened. My parents have abandoned me...'
"I raced to the phone on the kitchen wall and dialed the operator. 'That's it,' I told her, between sobs, 'my parents are gone; I'm all alone now.' The operator stayed on the phone with me until, sure enough, my mother did come home. She had slipped out for a few minutes to pick up some milk. It was, however, an experience I shall never forget."
Now, if you will, perform a little mental exercise. Imagine for a moment that you are four years old. Your parents are everything to you. Consider the terror you would feel thinking they have abandoned you, leaving you to somehow manage life on your own. Of course, as an adult, you know that this would never happen. However, as a child, you would not have known this. The threat would have seemed real. How does that terror feel?
Now, proceed further. Imagine you are six years old. Climbing on a chair, you have found your mother's cookie jar on the kitchen counter. It's filled with chocolate-chip cookies. You approach your mother, cookie jar in hand, and ask her for one. Now consider the following two scenarios:
SCENARIO A
Your mother kindly and lovingly looks at you and says: "No, dear, I'm sorry. It's not time for a cookie now; it's too close to dinnertime. As much as I know you'd like to have it, I can't give it to you right now."
SCENARIO B
Your mother has had a very hard day, and is at wit's end when you have approached her. She stares at you a little coldly for a minute. Then she turns and walks away. "I don't care," you hear as her voice trails away, "Your little cookie doesn't matter much to me at all right now. If you want it, take it."
As a 6-year-old, which of the two scenarios would you rather have faced? In the first, you are denied the cookie; but you get the loving attention of your mother. In the second, you get your cookie -- but a gnawing pit swells in your stomach. In some small way, your mother has abandoned you...
Let us continue. Imagine that you are older now. You and your spouse live in a small apartment. Unfortunately, your financial situation is bleak; you cannot afford to buy yourselves even a small, used car. Even routine grocery shopping has become an ordeal. Your husband's employer, however, has hinted he may be in line for a raise -- enough, perhaps, to allow you to afford a vehicle.
So you pray to God with added devotion, and ask for this raise to come through. We, of course, have no way to directly perceive how God accepts our prayers -- but for the sake of argument, let us imagine that you could somehow "hear" His response. Imagine, again, two scenarios:
SCENARIO A
God responds to you: "My child, I want you to know that I am with you. I know the stress you feel due to your financial situation, and I feel your anguish. But for reasons I cannot now reveal to you, it is not within the scheme of things for your husband to receive this raise."
SCENARIO B
God responds to you: "In the past, you have not displayed enough faith for Me to take your concerns seriously right now. I choose not to involve Myself in your plight; I shall allow events to unfold as they would on their own. If your husband's employer decides to give him the raise, then so be it; but I will not be involved."
Again, which would we prefer to hear? The first response firmly but gently denies our request, whereas the second leaves open the possibility that we will indeed get the money. But in the second response, we also feel the hard, cold shock of God abandoning us. If we do get the money, what price will we have paid?
And now, finally, consider a last situation. A man suffering the effects of leukemia is wheeled into the operating room for a last-chance operation to save his life. The doctors give him barely fifty-fifty odds. As he feels the anesthesia begin to take effect, he realizes quite clearly that this may be his last moments of consciousness on Earth. He opens his heart to God and prays that he will survive.
Imagine that in his last fleeting seconds of consciousness, this man would be privileged to hear God's response to him. Consider, again, two scenarios:
SCENARIO A
God responds to him: "My child, I want you to know that I am very close to you now. As you drift into sleep, I shall stay by your side, and I shall not leave you.
"I feel your anguish, and I know how much you want to live. But I must tell you that now is the time I have chosen for you to end your stay on Earth. You cannot understand why. But now, My child, is the time."
SCENARIO B
God responds to him: "You have not made yourself worthy of My becoming intimately involved in your affairs. The doctor who is operating on you is as competent as any; I shall leave your fate in his hands."
In his final waking moments, which response would the man rather hear? Is it not conceivable -- even probable -- that he would prefer God's intimate and loving denial of his request, than God's cold withdrawal from his life? If so -- if this is what we would feel were we in this man's situation -- then we may have discovered something truly profound about our values: An intimate relationship with our Parent in Heaven is something we would trade anything for -- even life itself.
When we truly open our hearts to God, we make God real in our lives.
This, then, says something important about why we pray, and what we get out of the experience.
Yes, it is true that we pray for the cookie, the car, or indeed, for our very lives. But these are only the apparent purposes of our prayers. For when we truly open our hearts to God -- when we genuinely reach out to Him in our times of need -- we make God real in our lives. We build a relationship with Him.
As in any good relationship, feelings tend to reciprocate. Our connection with God is no different. When we reach out to Him, He reaches back to us. Each word of prayer becomes a brick in the edifice of that relationship. And when all is said and done, we value that relationship more than anything.
I think that when we truly understand this, we have given ourselves the tools to deal with the possibility that God may not, in fact, grant us the object of our prayers. For we can realize that the more profound our need, the more deeply we have fashioned a relationship with our Creator by telling Him about it. Thus, whether we receive what we have "asked" for or not, we have certainly not been "betrayed" by God. A refusal can be loving, too. And the relationship we have built by asking has not gone away.
We live in a flesh and blood world, and this is a difficult truth to internalize. Our needs are real to us. We really do want the cookie or the car; our heartfelt desire for the object of our prayer is not simply imagined. However, if we pause for a moment, we can focus on the deeper things, too. Through our heartfelt communication, we have drawn closer to God, and He has drawn closer to us. And as we sense this closeness, we may find that we have not only achieved a deeper appreciation of prayer -- and of these Days of Awe -- but we have also gained newfound strength to deal with whatever response God ultimately bequeaths us.
Listen to Rabbi Fohrman's free audio classes at www.jewishtextstudy.org
Excerpted from "INSPIRING DAYS" published by K'hal Publishing in conjunction with The Afikim Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)