This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on June 30, 2008
A review of Nancy Douglas’s Freedom: Healing for Parents of Disabled Children (Buy from Amazon)
Book Description
In the pages of Freedom, Nancy Douglas candidly shares the pain, grief, and trials of having a disabled child. From the initial storm of discovering her daughter was Autistic, deaf, and Failure to Thrive, to the agony of knowing she would never receive physically healing, her compelling and honest account of life with a special needs child will transform the heart of all who read it. Walk with Nancy through the pages of her journey and discover for yourself the true and lasting freedom God has waiting for you!
Book Details
- Paperback: 228 pages
- Publisher: Nancy Douglas (February 18, 2008)
- ISBN-10: 0615188222
- ISBN-13: 978-0615188225
- Webpage: www.oliveleafministries.com
Nancy Douglas was looking forward to the birth of her daughter. It didn’t take long to realize that something was horribly wrong. After the dust had settled, she found that she was bound up in a conflicting mess of uncertainty, fear, guilt, and grief. Her daughter could not be healed: Nancy Douglas
would not be healed. Yet twenty years later she has emerged from the worst and is now in a position to share her experiences so that others might find healing- and freedom- sooner.
As the parent of a disabled child myself, I could resonate with much of what Mrs. Douglas wrote about. There were somethings about her experiences that were different for my wife and I but there were others that were very similar. I believe that this book will be well suited for the Christian parents of a disabled child where the parents struggle to cope even years later. This book is proof positive that skeptics and atheists are not the first or only ones to struggle with the problem of pain and suffering. Quite possibly, even those who are not believers but are the parents of disabled children will be able to relate to her candid discussion about her long time struggle with God… and see that God is waiting to help them, too.
The strongest chapter, in my opinion, is chapter three, which is titled “Good Grief.” She explains that someone doesn’t have to die in order for another to experience grief. This is absolutely true. I know that my wife and I endured a long period of what can only be appropriately described as grief, though what had died was not the child, but the whole host of expectations that were dashed when we learned our child would be disabled. While we have overcome most of the outright grief, there are still shooting pains when we realize that our child will never dance, play soccer, or climb a tree. Or at least, if these things happen, they will happen in a radically transformed way. However, as Mrs. Douglas points out, there is a ‘good’ grief which makes you stronger and more resilient, and what makes it ‘good’ is not the degree of the event but rather the attitude one adopts in and through it.
Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on June 27, 2008
My new ‘friend’ Rational Man (not to be confused with Hyperbole Boy or the Stalker) has fired off a response to my response one or two blog entries ago. Here it is.
I have just a few points.
First of all, I loved the instant fixation on the fact that I am a creationist. This is ‘inside talk’ among atheists for: “And therefore any accusation against them is true.” But in my original blog entry, my creationist positions were never mentioned, and for good reason- they weren’t relevant. This is a common tactic, to be expected, I am afraid, but a little sad to see out of someone so…. rational. 
My next point is more substantial.
It appears from Jimbo’s post that he is a bit put off by the fact that I did not take his points seriously. For example, he said, “So you’ll be addressing these soon, right?” and “The problem … lies in what we believe that a sign from God actually is.” and “The description is far too lacking in detail, but here are just a few problems with your test”
My dear, dear friend, when you write in such a way as to take nobody seriously- which is fine as far as I’m concerned- one ought not be put off if you are not in turn taken seriously. You probably thought that in your original post you were already raising substantive points which any and all could have seen as much. In fact, you were issuing pithy jests, code language for full arguments and whole manners of thinking, and the sort that only your fellow atheists would perceive and agree with. That is not a good way to conduct business if, as it seems, you mean to have an intelligent conversation about the affair.
Nor do I have any intention now to dig into the question. A sidebar with a jester is good fun but it can’t be where I invest my time.
I think I do need to correct you on your analysis about the experiences of my friend I mentioned. You do realize that he’s still an atheist right? You say:
That reality is that if you put someone in a context where they want to believe the insanity that you feed him, he will believe it. It’s just that simple.
The whole point of my original blog entry was about atheists (and anyone, I reckon) asking for something specific and particular, receiving it, and still not being satisfied. Thus, my friend would be a poor illustration of the thread if he believed ‘the insanity I fed him.’ In point of fact, the original blog entry is silent on the details, and I’ll note that you haven’t asked what they are. As such, it is funny to watch you pontificate, knowing as little of the details as you do.
The only important thing is this: this particular atheist friend of mine insisted on having a sign from God, he received said sign, he knew the implications, and he did not need me to lay them out. The whole affair happened days and weeks before he ever talked to me (there were two separate incidents). In the end, he didn’t need “anyone who would talk sense to him” for he talked ‘sense’ into himself, urging that what he thought he had experienced either he didn’t experience at all or he misconstrued.
Hence my point, that if you give an atheist what he wants and he still ain’t happy, what’s the point in jumping through his hoops? If you can, at the bloody end, simply write off the experience as a trick of the senses, then this can be said about any future ‘signs’ too. It also begs the obvious point that you can write off the rest of their experiences on the same ground.
The place that you put me in your response is completely disproportionate to my role. I did not ‘purvey miracles.’ I didn’t ask him to ask for a sign. He asked for a sign himself and when he’d received it he was shaken. And then he called me. Compare and contrast with your statement here:
The test subject talked to someone who wanted to convince him that there would be a sign from God. He didn’t talk to anyone who would talk sense to him.
There is nothing in my original post that suggests that I ‘prepared’ him to receive a sign, or that I had any role in the miracles whatsoever. You sir, have won the “Holy Jump to Conclusion” award. It is a perfect example of what happens when a person has in mind to see only what he wants to see or what he thinks he’ll see. ‘Skeptics’ beware.
Posted by Anthony on June 26, 2008
Already I’m seeing and hearing reactions to today’s Supreme Court tossing of the DC gun ban saying that this is conservative judicial activism. As I understand it (I haven’t read the decisions myself), even the dissent is making that accusation.
I don’t agree, personally. I believe that the ruling was constructionist (which makes me wonder why Kennedy went with it) but let’s assume it was judicial activism. Is this not then an illustration about the foolishness of a judicial system that is allowed to deviate at will from the words on the paper? There is no right to an abortion listed in the Constitution, ala Roe vs. Wade. There is no language in the Constitution or even the state constitutions ensuring that gays have as much right to ‘marriage’ as others. And yet, courts have found that they are. This is the bed the liberals made: now lie in it.
As far as I’m concerned, if states want to decide to legalize abortion, or legalize gay marriage, so long as it is done via the legislative branch, which is supposed to represent the will of the people, I will not be happy but at least I can say that democracy is preserved and that there is at least hope that we can yet persuade people to another position. But on the current model, people are essentially disenfranchised. In order to overturn a ruling, in particular the SC ruling, you need to A. get a justice in there with the views you like and B. Get a case to come before them that matches the thing you want to accomplish.
Not easy to do. It can take a generation to pull it off, if not a century. Seems like a bad way to run a country, to me. If this is in fact an instance of judicial activism from the conservative side, then let this be a warning and a call to action to the liberals: it’s time to stop using the courts to push our agendas and trust the people and the legislative processes.
Posted by Anthony on June 25, 2008
I loved this wacky ‘point by point’ response to a blog entry I wrote like 8 months ago. One already knows that he’s in for sarcastic inside jokes that miss the point when, in the first paragraph, the fellah says:
[Quoting Sntjohnny]I am reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s movie “The Life of Bryan” where a leper is healed and complains about it because it took away his livelihood of begging. Bryan replies “There’s just no pleasing some people!” and the Leper says, “That’s just what Jesus said!”[/end quote]
That’s a great movie! “Every sperm is Sacred” is an awesome song that just gets better and better the more I think about the truths that it hammers home. It rocks!
Of course, everyone knows that “Every sperm is Sacred” is not in the Life of Bryan. It’s in The Meaning of Life, as any true fan of Monty Python would know. Perhaps ‘Jim Rational’ picked up the skeptical reader to the Monty Python corpus.
In typical fashion, Mr. Rational’s points resonate only with those who agree with him, and unless you can speak atheistese you’d never imagine that there was a point buried in his responses. I am fluent in atheistese, however.
I will not respond in detail to a post that is the epitome of preaching to the choir, but I will speak to one particular point where I think the man, despite crystal clear language on my part, missed the point.
[Sntjohnny Quote]For example, I know an atheist who requested a sign from God. He received it. We spoke together on the phone about it. He was freaked out. After a few months he decided it wasn’t enough and that it was all probably a trick of the mind. Surely we can see how if God had done more or does more my friend can still chalk it up to a trick of the mind? Why should God give him what he wants when it won’t make him happy anyway?[/end quote]
Ah. I see your choice would be to write him off instead of trying to figure out what would convince him. Oh well. Too bad for you.
Ah, right. Let’s see. The man REQUESTED A SIGN FROM GOD. It isn’t brain surgery to ‘figure out what would convince him.’ The man himself asked for a sign, and he received it. Seriously, is this so difficult? I do hope that true rational Jims that are out there will pardon me for figuring that if a man asks for and receives a sign from God, but still isn’t convinced by that sign, my role in the matter is pretty limited. Indeed, about the only thing that I can do at that point is say, “Dude. You asked for a sign. You got it. What’s your problem?” Which, by the way, did say- though in kinder terms, as the gent is a friend.
My hats off to you, Rational Jim! More proof that no Christian ever worry that there is any reason to worry about the challenges of the atheistic community! Peace, homeslice.
Posted by Anthony on
You may discuss this post at the corresponding discussion forum thread.
In the midst of my various activities lately (finishing my own book, finishing books for review, etc) I have been contemplating and discussing what the proper attitude and conduct should be among Christians towards things like oppressed workers in China and things of that sort. In the current climate that pits left versus right, even among Christians, I believe that I have a unique view that deserves a hearing.
Here it is in a nutshell: The Bible calls Christians to reach out first to their own family, than the family of believers, and then the outside world. It is my view that most of the emphasis on social affairs, from both the left and the right (speaking here only of the Christians on that spectrum), is on the outside world. Like for example, oppressed workers in China. Like for example, the Alaskan tundra. And yes, even issues like gay marriage and abortion on demand.
But the New Testament is clear about the scope of our efforts and I’m afraid we’ve failed dismally about what we’ve already been told. In short, even if the Christian ought to be concerned about some of these other larger issues, until they’ve done the duties that have been clearly set before them, it is dubious how much effort they should place on doing the things that are extended from principles derived from what is clearly set before them. If you should like a direct example of what I mean, it is nonsense for the Christian community to be heavily involved in pro-family iniatives while the Christian community itself endures a divorce rate as high as the non-Christian community.
It might be argued that something like Jesus’ words in Matthew 23 applies: “But you have neglected the more important matters of the law- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”
I am calling attention to the former things that have been neglected, notwithstanding the fact that in some of these issues what we attempt to strain out may not be a gnat anymore, but a ‘camel’ in its own right. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on June 20, 2008
Has anyone else noticed this?
As a case in point- in part because atheists have accused me of ‘inventing’ atheistic positions- consider this entry on my blog and the comments that follow. But to be clear, I run across this phenomena all the time as I read and debate theism or ‘intelligent design.’
Let me illustrate what I mean by the real world quest for the origins for life. Scientists are working like mad to recreate life from scratch. It is requiring all their technology, all of their accumulated knowledge, and all of their expertise. There have been some ‘successes’ which are extremely rudimentary and light years from really duplicating life as we observe it in the real world out of non-life. But let’s say that they do finally succeed! After fifty years of intense research and development, they produce something that is worthy of the declaration “We have created life!”
It is hailed as a breakthrough of the scientific method and evolutionists and philosophical naturalists everywhere applaud! For, it has now been demonstrated that life could arise from purely naturalistic processes after all! But there is a hitch.
The Christians, religionists, Intelligent Design theorists, etc, will point out that in fact they proved the opposite: that purely naturalistic processes cannot produce life, but rather it required all of the efforts of the smartest human agents in the world over a period of decades.
The secular humanist does not see it that way. For, by a quick twist in the mind, the skeptic is able to argue that in fact it was the result of ‘purely naturalistic processes’ because, of course, humans are a part of nature.
Now, this sort of intellectual gymnastics only occurs in the context of religious matters or anything that might possibly justify the inference that there is a God. For we quickly see simply by going to our cupboards that the word ‘natural’ appears often on our food goods. You’ll see a statement like “All Natural!” or “No artificial ingredients!” Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on June 12, 2008
Well, not yet, anyway. Just crossing the wire is the news that the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision (Liberals+Kennedy versus the Conservatives) that detainees at Gitmo have the same Federal rights under the constitution as any other American, at least insofar as being able to access Federal courts. I’ll issue the same caveat I’ve heard elsewhere- this has just been released so more details on the decision might clear things up. At this point, however, it looks like the Supreme Court has just extended the privileges and immunities of the Constitution to ‘enemy combatants.’
I am just curious to know where such logic ends. If they can make use of the civilian courts it surely would follow that they would fall under civilian law. If it doesn’t mean that then it is an irrational and disjointed opinion (and it might prove to be just that). If it does mean that, let us consider the implications: our soldiers will have to take into account the rights under American law that those shooting at them have. After all, even gangsters shooting at cops have rights. Will our soldiers have to get warrants before breaking into buildings the enemy is thought to be hiding in? Will they have to prove ‘probable cause’ to obtain those warrants? Will they have to read them their rights before shooting? Will they have to collect and document evidence?
Can the enemy upon arrest seek bail? Get parole? Demand a jury trial of their peers? “Your honor, we don’t believe we can get a fair trial in the states. We’d like to move the trial to Pakistan…” Perhaps this is a Democrat led attempt to bring enemy soldiers under Federal law so that they can now tax them.
In the end, besides the absurdities that I suspect our soldiers will have to ponder and may actually be the actual implications of the decision (again, pending further review), the real net effect seems to me that if the rights of the Constitution extend to those who are not citizens in Gitmo, then they are to be extended to anyone who is not a citizen anywhere. Why it should apply only to our detainees is beyond me. Has the entire world now been extended the rights of American citizens? Can they all sue in Federal courts? Or must they first get themselves detained?
What about illegal immigrants, then? When they get detained should they be able to sue in Federal courts?
Where does this madness end?
