Eden

I've already acquired a shotgun.

"Daddy, why do people die?"

The title isn't an awfully corny lead into a predictable lecture that ends with "But, Jesus can save you". That's true, but the question that is the title of this post was an actual question from my friend's six year old son. I find it very profound. My friend is an intelligent, thoughtful man, and so he struggled with how to answer this question honestly. He decided to answer his boy by telling him it was a big question, and that he didn't know for sure, but everyone had to find their own answer eventually. As my friend finished telling me about this conversation he said, "So, I'm glad I didn't take the opportunity to brainwash my son."



There are some very real, tangible dangers to post-modern philosophies, not the least of which is the eventual necessity to use might to determine "right", but my friend's comments point to another danger, and that is the loss of generational wisdom. That is, if all conclusions and all opinions are equally valid, it's unecessary to teach our children anything other than that simple principle. As they will eventually form their own opinions and come to their own conclusions, and those will by definition be as valid as that of their parents, teaching becomes not only unecessary, but since it is purposefully influencing thoughts and conclusions, it is actually looked on as brainwashing.



Now, if I asked my friend I'm sure he'd tell me that he teaches his son not to play in traffic, how to properly handle a knife, what he can eat and what he cannot eat, etc. He quite naturally does these things, and rightfully so in order that his son's physical health be maintained. This is necessary because there are rules that govern our physical well being, there is a design to our physical being that reacts well to some things and does not react well to others. Most post-modern thinkers do not disagree with this, but they draw a philosophical line between the physical and the metaphysical. They say there are rules and order to the physical (a post-modern would not suggest that scientific theory is invalid), but that there are no such rules or order in the metaphysical world. Francis Schaefer refers to this dividing line as the "line of despair". There is not, in my opinion any logical reason for this line, and it therefore follows easily that that about us that is not physical (I would call it spiritual) is also benefitted by some thoughts and actions, and damaged by others. We should therefore be at least as careful and intentional in teaching our children about spiritual health as we are about physical health, and to do this is no more to brainwash them than teaching them not to crawl into the oven.



Right now I'm not sure how I'd answer this question for my son, but I'm very grateful for the eternal wisdom of the Bible and the thoughts it offers on difficult questions such as this, and even more grateful for a God who has promised that love covers a multitude of sins...and those would be my sins it's covering.



As a side note, if you happen to be reading this and find yourself wondering firstly how you got here, it was probably not intentional, but let's go with it and answer your next question which might be around where to find some instruction on what is and is not good for the human soul. I would recommend Jesus, and more specifically the book of Matthew, chapters 6 and 7. These teachings are generally referred to as the Sermon on the Mount.

But don't go anywhere else

Vaccines are a tremendously controversial subject right now, and since this is merely a blog by an admitted lay person in the area of medicine, I'm not really going to jump into it too much. I just have an interesting story to share that involves vaccines. I will however mention that I believe much of the heated debate on this topic has to do with the majority of the medical community simply refusing to engage in the conversation. The impression I get is that they feel they have spoken and they don't want to talk about it anymore. Never mind that an ever increasing number of people are refusing vaccines, that we're seeing huge spikes in childhood diseases coming under the umbrella of autism, auto-immune disorders, and allergies with no good explanation as to why, that the number of suggested vaccinations has gone from somewhere around four (polio and mmr) to somewhere around sixteen in the last 15 or so years, that there are some very questionable connections between those people who are recommending the vaccines and those people who are making the vaccines, and that above all parents are asking for some real answers. Still, what we get in response is a one size fits all immunization schedule, the strong suggestion that every single person get every single vaccination at the scheduled time, and no viable studies on long term effects of this practice.



As I said though, I'm not going to add my two cents to this debate because many who know far more than I are already speaking on both sides. I appreciate that, especially from those in the medical community (such as my doctor) who are willing to have the conversation and who are willing to allow parents to choose not to immunize or to follow a modified immunization schedule without writing them off as crazies who are unfit to parent. In fact, if a parent isn't questioning loading their child from birth with viruses and foreign substances (such as aluminum, formaldehyde, and various animal products) before doing so, that should cause some concern.



My sister and I were having this conversation the other day, as we both have children who would be getting vaccinations via the standard schedule, and so it's more than just an academic topic of discussion for us. She was telling me that she had gone into her doctor to have her youngest daughter receive a second round of vaccinations and she was asking the nurse some questions about a particular vaccine. The nurse was answering the question and then said, "If you have any more questions just go to cdc.gov...but don't go anywhere else." I was shocked, but not particularly surprised that she would say this. It really just belies the medical community's stance on the vaccination debate, in that in their minds there is no debate, but only wild, ignorant ravings from those who present information counter to theirs. However, regardless of the quality of the argument against, when someone who is supposed to be a trusted advisor is saying that an agency of the U.S. government is the sole bearer of truth on a subject, that should lead to some serious questioning of that person's role as an advisor, and if the medical community as a whole is suggesting such a thing with regard to vaccinations, we should all be very alarmed, and become very educated on the subject.