Hello,
Just now read about a miracle that I wanted to share.
Hannah Clark is a young girl of 16 who has started playing games, has a part time job and plans to go back to school in September.
All this had looked impossible 15 years ago when as a eight month old baby, Hannah had developed serious heart problems. As heart donations were rare she had to wait another year when a heart of a 5 month old was available.
Meanwhile, on medication, Hannah developed lung problems as well and when it was time for the transplant the doctors thought it prudent to graft the donor's heart directly into her heart.
The doctors then put little Hannah on medication to prevent her body from rejecting the new heart and this gave rise to Cancer and chemotherapy.
But the chemotherapy and the lowering of the drugs did not help and the cancer spread. Hannah's ravished little body finally rejected the donor heart and then a miracle happened.
Hannah original heart started functioning normally and in February 2006, ten years after the implant, the donor heart it was removed from her body.
There were days when Hannah was given just hours to live and science fails to explain how Hannah got her heart back.
Miguel Uva, Chairperson of the European Society of Cardiology's group on cardiovascular surgery called Hannah case a 'miracle'. He said that it is rare for patient's heart to get simply better on their own.
Another proof of the existence of the Almighty. A miracle.
You can read all about the case on Lancet. log on to http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61201-0/fulltext
Best wishes,
Manoj
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Honesty
Hi,
Honesty and the consequences keep haunting my thoughts. I have told several lies and on most occasions there has been no real need for such lies. So then why do I do it.
What makes one tell a lie/be dishonest:The genesis of any lie/ dishonest act can be found in the following three main issues
What is to be gained by telling the lie/ being dishonest.
What are the probability of getting caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
What are the consequences, the magnitude of the punishment if caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
'Gain'.
When we tell small lies like "Oh I was just going through the newspaper" when actually we are surfing the net. This lie is told just to create the impression that the news interests us more than surfing the net.
We believe that there is a 'gain' by creating this impression.
What if the plan is to cheat the Bank? The dishonesty will result in financial gain. Lots of money.
'Probability of getting caught'
The lie about the newspaper is easily said as the person on the phone has the least chance of catching me in the act of lying. The fact that we know that the listener has a small chance of catching on makes us succumb to the temptation of telling the lie.
The probability of getting caught while cheating the Bank is much higher as there are several checks and balances involved.
'Magnitude of punishment'
We tell the lie with the hope that the magnitude of punishment is tolerable. Suppose in the example we tell the lie about reading the newspaper and the listener actually lands up to take a look at the newspaper which I don't have. What happens. I just giggle out of it.
Prison is the least you have to be ready for when you get caught while cheating a Bank.
We have more liars about the newspaper than about the Bank. Why? The gains are much higher when we cheat the Bank, but we do not do that. There is hardly any gain (tangible) when we lie about the newspaper but we do it frequently.
So it is not the risk reward that makes us lie.
The factor that makes us lie/ be dishonest is manner in which the act of lying/ being dishonest might make us perceive ourselves.
Most of us feel that we are dishonest only while doing a certain set of things. A person who keeps taking back A4 size papers home from office does not consider himself dishonest but he would baulk at picking up a one rupee note lying on the table of his colleague. His perception being that the A4 paper theft is not really something he should be ashamed of. Another logic used would be "everybody does it". But the one rupee is cash and stealing it maybe taboo.
I know of a very honest person in my previous Bank who would refuse all kinds of gifts but would use the Bank money to sponsor his trips to temples spread all across the country. His perception being that gifts represent bribes whereas taking advantage of his position in the Bank to sponsor his temple trips was just a perk that came with the job.
Therefore, when we talk of controlling our desire to be dishonest we have change the way we perceive ourselves while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
We have to analyze every slip we make and feel sorry for having succumbed to the temptation of gain of any size.
When we start changing the way we perceive ourselves while doing the act we are on the road to honesty.
It is a long way off for me.
Best regards,
Manoj
Honesty and the consequences keep haunting my thoughts. I have told several lies and on most occasions there has been no real need for such lies. So then why do I do it.
What makes one tell a lie/be dishonest:The genesis of any lie/ dishonest act can be found in the following three main issues
What is to be gained by telling the lie/ being dishonest.
What are the probability of getting caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
What are the consequences, the magnitude of the punishment if caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
'Gain'.
When we tell small lies like "Oh I was just going through the newspaper" when actually we are surfing the net. This lie is told just to create the impression that the news interests us more than surfing the net.
We believe that there is a 'gain' by creating this impression.
What if the plan is to cheat the Bank? The dishonesty will result in financial gain. Lots of money.
'Probability of getting caught'
The lie about the newspaper is easily said as the person on the phone has the least chance of catching me in the act of lying. The fact that we know that the listener has a small chance of catching on makes us succumb to the temptation of telling the lie.
The probability of getting caught while cheating the Bank is much higher as there are several checks and balances involved.
'Magnitude of punishment'
We tell the lie with the hope that the magnitude of punishment is tolerable. Suppose in the example we tell the lie about reading the newspaper and the listener actually lands up to take a look at the newspaper which I don't have. What happens. I just giggle out of it.
Prison is the least you have to be ready for when you get caught while cheating a Bank.
We have more liars about the newspaper than about the Bank. Why? The gains are much higher when we cheat the Bank, but we do not do that. There is hardly any gain (tangible) when we lie about the newspaper but we do it frequently.
So it is not the risk reward that makes us lie.
The factor that makes us lie/ be dishonest is manner in which the act of lying/ being dishonest might make us perceive ourselves.
Most of us feel that we are dishonest only while doing a certain set of things. A person who keeps taking back A4 size papers home from office does not consider himself dishonest but he would baulk at picking up a one rupee note lying on the table of his colleague. His perception being that the A4 paper theft is not really something he should be ashamed of. Another logic used would be "everybody does it". But the one rupee is cash and stealing it maybe taboo.
I know of a very honest person in my previous Bank who would refuse all kinds of gifts but would use the Bank money to sponsor his trips to temples spread all across the country. His perception being that gifts represent bribes whereas taking advantage of his position in the Bank to sponsor his temple trips was just a perk that came with the job.
Therefore, when we talk of controlling our desire to be dishonest we have change the way we perceive ourselves while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
We have to analyze every slip we make and feel sorry for having succumbed to the temptation of gain of any size.
When we start changing the way we perceive ourselves while doing the act we are on the road to honesty.
It is a long way off for me.
Best regards,
Manoj
Friday, July 10, 2009
Uniformity of the Universe - Embarrassment for atheists
One of the remarkable features of the universe is that above a certain scale (about 1024 metres) it is highly uniform in structure. This degree of uniformity is an embarrassment to cosmologists.
According to relativity theory, there should be no causal connection between points separated by distances greater than c multiplied by t (where c is the velocity of light and t is the age of the universe). Extrapolating this back to the Big Bang suggests that the primordial universe was partitioned into about 1080 causally separate regions.
Nevertheless, all these disconnected regions had to expand at the same rate to maintain the observed degree of uniformity! Coincidence or co-operation?
Small wonder that Paul Davies (I hope the atheists know him) comments:“It is hard to resist the impression of something - some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinement of relativistic causality - possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly co-ordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us.”
According to relativity theory, there should be no causal connection between points separated by distances greater than c multiplied by t (where c is the velocity of light and t is the age of the universe). Extrapolating this back to the Big Bang suggests that the primordial universe was partitioned into about 1080 causally separate regions.
Nevertheless, all these disconnected regions had to expand at the same rate to maintain the observed degree of uniformity! Coincidence or co-operation?
Small wonder that Paul Davies (I hope the atheists know him) comments:“It is hard to resist the impression of something - some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinement of relativistic causality - possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly co-ordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us.”
Sunday, July 5, 2009
ARE ZEUS AND THOR FORGOTTEN GODS
I read somewhere the Atheists argument that if God was so omnipresent and forever how come no one worships Thor and Zeus, the Gods who were so powerful just a few centuries ago.
What Atheists forget is that the names of Gods like Zeus, Thor and others are just a way of making Gods look human.
Why? You will ask, of course. Why try to humanize God?
I tried to analyze it and my personal explanation is that the attempt to humanize God was made to make people aware of the various attributes and powers of God.
It is clear that appearances are important and even atheist are ready to convert if they can see God. If the educated class (that is what Atheist try to project themselves as) also believe only in the existence of objects that can be seen how can they not understand the needs of the less privileged.
Our ancestors understood this very well that it is easier to explain to people with form. The recognizable attributes were given form to make people connect directly with God.
Slowly, people forgot the purpose of the creation of form for Gods and started worshiping the idols. It is convenient for certain sections that people get attached to idols and forget that God is formless, omnipresent and most powerful.
Religion which starts as a way of life becomes a slave of rituals and diminishes the sanctity of the thought of God.
When people realize that the forms are not needed to worship the forms loose their importance . Zeus and Thor are forms which outlived their utility as people understood that the attributes that Thor and Zeus represent are actually part of the same God everyone wants to be close to.
Zeus and Thor and several other forms just represent the attributes of God who is formless, omnipresent and all powerful.
Manoj
What Atheists forget is that the names of Gods like Zeus, Thor and others are just a way of making Gods look human.
Why? You will ask, of course. Why try to humanize God?
I tried to analyze it and my personal explanation is that the attempt to humanize God was made to make people aware of the various attributes and powers of God.
It is clear that appearances are important and even atheist are ready to convert if they can see God. If the educated class (that is what Atheist try to project themselves as) also believe only in the existence of objects that can be seen how can they not understand the needs of the less privileged.
Our ancestors understood this very well that it is easier to explain to people with form. The recognizable attributes were given form to make people connect directly with God.
Slowly, people forgot the purpose of the creation of form for Gods and started worshiping the idols. It is convenient for certain sections that people get attached to idols and forget that God is formless, omnipresent and most powerful.
Religion which starts as a way of life becomes a slave of rituals and diminishes the sanctity of the thought of God.
When people realize that the forms are not needed to worship the forms loose their importance . Zeus and Thor are forms which outlived their utility as people understood that the attributes that Thor and Zeus represent are actually part of the same God everyone wants to be close to.
Zeus and Thor and several other forms just represent the attributes of God who is formless, omnipresent and all powerful.
Manoj
Friday, July 3, 2009
WHY IS IT DIFFICULT TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Most debates on the existence of the Almighty are based on the inability of theists to provide proof of the existence.
This I agree is difficult. Most of our beliefs are either based on what is always being considered as the acceptable truth or on personal experiences which point out to the existence.
Personal experiences are unique and although a small incident like getting cured of cancer when all hope is lost or unexpectedly meeting someone who helps you through a crisis may be a big event for you, for the non believer, it is just fluke/ chance or coincidence.
There are many events in everyday life which are difficult to explain through science. How events tie up to bring success where it is least expected and how worship alone makes things happen are easy to be pooh poohed and treated as a matter of probability but that may be for someone not involved. For the person involved it is God even when he does not appear in front of us.
If God did not exist why do atheist try so hard to prove it. It should be acceptable to all if there was proof.
Produce it my dear friends or let us live with our faith and belief.
This I agree is difficult. Most of our beliefs are either based on what is always being considered as the acceptable truth or on personal experiences which point out to the existence.
Personal experiences are unique and although a small incident like getting cured of cancer when all hope is lost or unexpectedly meeting someone who helps you through a crisis may be a big event for you, for the non believer, it is just fluke/ chance or coincidence.
There are many events in everyday life which are difficult to explain through science. How events tie up to bring success where it is least expected and how worship alone makes things happen are easy to be pooh poohed and treated as a matter of probability but that may be for someone not involved. For the person involved it is God even when he does not appear in front of us.
If God did not exist why do atheist try so hard to prove it. It should be acceptable to all if there was proof.
Produce it my dear friends or let us live with our faith and belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
