We are rapidly approaching a critical point in the destruction of the United States of America. The democrat machine, led by the once popular Barack Obama, is steamrolling through congress an unpopular, destructive, unfathomably expensive "health care reform" -- that is their label for the democrat takeover of 1/6 of the economy of the USA.
They have progressed to the point that there is no obvious way for patriotic Americans to stop them. They appear to have the votes to stop debate and pass the bill. There are not enough known votes to block them.
What they have not counted on is the power of prayer. As Christian patriots unite in prayer to Almighty God to preserve this Union that was established by His mighty hand, He is able to block the traitors in their foul plans. At least one senator has ridiculed calls for prayer to stop the betrayal of our nation. He does not seem to know about the Tower of Babel when mankind chose to oppose God.
Although I can not say what God's plans for our once-great nation are, I am confident that He is ABLE to turn the vote any way He chooses. It is my fervent prayer that He will thwart the "unstoppable" plans of the majority and preserve and protect our nation.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Hoxsey Therapy
Following a recommendation by Andreas Moritz (more about him another time), I found information regarding Hoxsey Therapy. At first glance, it reminds me of Gerson Therapy -- both were very effective at curing many cancers until hounded out of the country by the medical industry and government regulators.
For a seven page report that balances both the accusations against Harry Hoxsey and the support his patients gave him, see that report on healthy.net. As I learn more, I'll offer updates.
For a seven page report that balances both the accusations against Harry Hoxsey and the support his patients gave him, see that report on healthy.net. As I learn more, I'll offer updates.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
My Take on Health Care Reform
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING TEXT IS BIASED! PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK.
A dominant current news item is the attempt to “reform” health care, with focus on who controls payment. The Congress is spending weeks on end debating openly as well as plotting in formerly-smoke-filled rooms how to put together a bill that will pass both houses, regardless the low opinion of such action held by a majority of US voters. Though by no means certain, it is quite possible that they will succeed in establishing a new entitlement program that will bankrupt the nation and still not provide any improvement in health care in this once-great nation.
The potential for ruin of our health care only emphasizes the need for each of us to take personal responsibility for our individual wellness. The only sure way that I can see to avoid having the government determine what doctor I can see or what medications I will be provided or how long I have to wait for a joint replacement is not to need them.
I can only wish that I could guarantee wellness for everyone who practices the best possible wellness care. Although I have discovered countless reports of recovered wellness after severe illness or injury, each of us is different. What worked for someone else may not have the same result for me. When I look at the variety of diet books available, I imagine that for someone, each book is the right path. The road most traveled, also known as the Standard American Diet (SAD, isn't it?), has been clearly proven to be the path to unwellness.
What we can do with the greatest certainty of a good outcome is simple:
STUDY to learn what works for others.
ADOPT those habits that others have found beneficial.
AVOID those habits that have caused others to come to ruin.
Consistently doing those three actions has brought me to the point at age 69 that I am active and engaged, with no significant limitation on my activities. I still can do anything that I choose to do without giving a second thought, whether walking, running, digging, lifting, pushing, pulling, climbing, etc. Sure, I have aches and (minor) pains, but none that stop me from my active life. I began my self-healing journey at age 12 when I chose not to be a smoker, even though everyone around me was doing it. I chose not to participate when other 7th graders were learning to pass out by hyperventilating. I learned to avoid refined sugar and bleached flour at age 27. I quit coffee at age 32, not sure whether it was harmful or not. I quit meat at age 49 because of the example of a friend who had bypass surgery and the doctor prescribed no more than four ounces per week of red meat – if it is good for a cure, it must be even better as preventative. I learned about juicing and the power of raw foods in my latter 50s. More recently, I have discovered the need for supplements to replace nutritional value that is no longer available in our food supply. And, thanks to a few bold researchers and medical doctors, I have learned some of the underlying reasons why these changes are helpful.
What will it take for you to reach a state of wellness that will shield you from whatever changes are imposed on our health care system? The only way to find out is to start. Whether you choose to change in order to reduce your dependence on the government or simply to improve how you feel, I'll be glad to help you along the way. Just let me know.
A dominant current news item is the attempt to “reform” health care, with focus on who controls payment. The Congress is spending weeks on end debating openly as well as plotting in formerly-smoke-filled rooms how to put together a bill that will pass both houses, regardless the low opinion of such action held by a majority of US voters. Though by no means certain, it is quite possible that they will succeed in establishing a new entitlement program that will bankrupt the nation and still not provide any improvement in health care in this once-great nation.
The potential for ruin of our health care only emphasizes the need for each of us to take personal responsibility for our individual wellness. The only sure way that I can see to avoid having the government determine what doctor I can see or what medications I will be provided or how long I have to wait for a joint replacement is not to need them.
I can only wish that I could guarantee wellness for everyone who practices the best possible wellness care. Although I have discovered countless reports of recovered wellness after severe illness or injury, each of us is different. What worked for someone else may not have the same result for me. When I look at the variety of diet books available, I imagine that for someone, each book is the right path. The road most traveled, also known as the Standard American Diet (SAD, isn't it?), has been clearly proven to be the path to unwellness.
What we can do with the greatest certainty of a good outcome is simple:
STUDY to learn what works for others.
ADOPT those habits that others have found beneficial.
AVOID those habits that have caused others to come to ruin.
Consistently doing those three actions has brought me to the point at age 69 that I am active and engaged, with no significant limitation on my activities. I still can do anything that I choose to do without giving a second thought, whether walking, running, digging, lifting, pushing, pulling, climbing, etc. Sure, I have aches and (minor) pains, but none that stop me from my active life. I began my self-healing journey at age 12 when I chose not to be a smoker, even though everyone around me was doing it. I chose not to participate when other 7th graders were learning to pass out by hyperventilating. I learned to avoid refined sugar and bleached flour at age 27. I quit coffee at age 32, not sure whether it was harmful or not. I quit meat at age 49 because of the example of a friend who had bypass surgery and the doctor prescribed no more than four ounces per week of red meat – if it is good for a cure, it must be even better as preventative. I learned about juicing and the power of raw foods in my latter 50s. More recently, I have discovered the need for supplements to replace nutritional value that is no longer available in our food supply. And, thanks to a few bold researchers and medical doctors, I have learned some of the underlying reasons why these changes are helpful.
What will it take for you to reach a state of wellness that will shield you from whatever changes are imposed on our health care system? The only way to find out is to start. Whether you choose to change in order to reduce your dependence on the government or simply to improve how you feel, I'll be glad to help you along the way. Just let me know.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Mammography Debate, Part II
The Cancer Decisions Newsletter by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., Sunday, 29 November 2009
Last week we began a discussion of the new USPSTF recommendations on breast cancer screening. We conclude, with references, this week.
Barbara Brenner of the San Francisco-based group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA), is one of the rare leaders who has come out in support of the USPSTF recommendations. She says that the new recommendations would simply bring the US in line with most European countries, and hailed the USPSTF panel's results. A BCA spokesperson told me that they have been deluged with comments from their members, not all of them supportive. (Note: I am a scientific advisor to Breast Cancer Action.) A lot of people are really upset by the loss of security that mammography provides.
Brenner raises the point that some patients, who have been led to believe that mammography is a safe and effective way of reducing their risk of cancer, will see this as an attack on themselves, or at least a threatened reduction in their healthcare coverage. This is particularly so with women whose tumors were first discovered via mammograms or breast self-examination (BSE). Yet Brenner comments:
"Some people will be upset because their breast cancer was found on a mammogram that would not have happened under the new guidelines. Some people will be confused because they don't understand what the downsides could possibly be to the early detection of breast cancer. It's very difficult for people to ignore their personal situations in thinking about what should happen as a matter of policy. But emerging science tells us that we need to try to do that if we're going to get to the best place in terms of both reducing deaths from breast cancer and minimizing the harms that occur when we do mammography screening."
Patients - including those who may feel they have benefited from BSE or mammography-need to reflect that all medical procedures carry risks as well as benefits. So what is the potential harm of near-universal screening mammography? Brenner highlights four problem areas:
1. False negative results: These occur when a mammogram indicates that a woman is without cancer, yet it is actually present. (This is what happened to New York Times author Gail Collins, as she reported in a recent column on the controversy.)
2. False positives results: The mammogram indicates a problem, yet a subsequent biopsy (tissue sample) shows that there is no cancer present. A big relief-but the whole experience results in fear, stress, expense, and physical and emotional scarring.
3. Mammography involves x-rays and x-rays have been called the "complete carcinogen," because they can both initiate and promote cancer growth. A few years ago, researchers at Columbia University wrote: "There is evidence that low energy X rays as used in mammographic screening produce an increased biological risk per unit dose relative to higher energy photons. At low doses, the increased risk appears to be of a factor of 2….For older women, the benefit is still likely to outweigh the radiation risk. For women less than 50 years of age, however, this increase in the estimated radiation risk might indicate a somewhat later age than currently suggested, by about 5 to10 years, at which to recommend commencement of routine breast screening" (Brenner 2002).
4. Overdiagnosis of "pseudo-malignancies," i.e., the discovery of non-malignant abnormalities that would never progress to outright cancer. Finding pseudo-malignancies swells the ranks of "cancer survivors," swelling the ranks and coffers of various non-profit agencies. Adding pseudo-malignancies to real cancers also has the side effect of improving the alleged "cure rate" of the disease. That's because almost all of these people will be "cured" (albeit of a disease that they did not really have). But without mammograms these people would never have known they had a non-consequential slight abnormality. My favorite author on the topic is H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, and author of Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not, and Here's Why
In the past, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Radiology (ACR) all recommended annual mammography for all women over the age of 40. The statistic that was most commonly quoted is that by detecting breast cancer early, before it has become large enough to be clinically apparent as an obvious lump in the breast, mammography reduces the mortality rate from breast cancer by 20 to 30 percent. So fixed has this statistic become in the minds of women, the medical profession and the media that by repetition alone it has now attained the status of unimpeachable fact. A closer examination of the data yields a somewhat less certain picture. The benefits of mammography are much smaller than we've been led to believe.
Professor Samuel Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition has tirelessly drawn attention to the radiation risks of screening mammography, has pointed out that sobering fact that over a period of 10 years, a pre-menopausal woman undergoing annual mammograms receives almost half the dose of radiation that was measurable within a mile of the Hiroshima bomb epicenter. (Note: I am a board member of the CPC.)
I too have been a long-time skeptic on the benefits of routine mammography. In my book The Cancer Industry (published as the Cancer Syndrome in 1980) I wrote critically about this mass screening program. I thought it would do more harm than good. In particular, I wrote about the work of John Bailar, MD, editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and his early and vociferous opposition to the mammography program.
A few months ago I also published a Special Report on Mammography, Biopsy and the Detection of Breast Cancer. Here is what Joel Evans, MD, founder and director of The Center for Women's Health, Darien, CT, and assistant clinical professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York said about my report:
"Ralph Moss has written a scholarly and frightening treatise that is a 'must read' for both the general public and all health professionals. It has the capacity to transform our approach to breast cancer screening and diagnosis. It is a remarkable gift to the women of the world."
We are now offering this report for $9.95, half the usual price. To order our special mammography report, please click here.
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
References
I highly recommend Prof. Aronowitz's excellent op-ed in the New York Times, "Addicted to Mammograms," Nov. 20, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html
American Cancer Society statement on mammography: http://tinyurl.com/yk8q8fu
Barbara Brenner and Breast Cancer Action's statement: http://tinyurl.com/yhoqq68
Brenner DJ, Sawant SG, et al. Routine screening mammography: how important is the radiation-risk side of the benefit-risk equation? Int J Radiat Biol. 2002;78:1065-1067
National Cancer Institute newsletter:
http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/111709/page2
USPSTF position paper:
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full
HHS Secretary's statement:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/11/20091118a.html
Last week we began a discussion of the new USPSTF recommendations on breast cancer screening. We conclude, with references, this week.
Barbara Brenner of the San Francisco-based group, Breast Cancer Action (BCA), is one of the rare leaders who has come out in support of the USPSTF recommendations. She says that the new recommendations would simply bring the US in line with most European countries, and hailed the USPSTF panel's results. A BCA spokesperson told me that they have been deluged with comments from their members, not all of them supportive. (Note: I am a scientific advisor to Breast Cancer Action.) A lot of people are really upset by the loss of security that mammography provides.
Brenner raises the point that some patients, who have been led to believe that mammography is a safe and effective way of reducing their risk of cancer, will see this as an attack on themselves, or at least a threatened reduction in their healthcare coverage. This is particularly so with women whose tumors were first discovered via mammograms or breast self-examination (BSE). Yet Brenner comments:
"Some people will be upset because their breast cancer was found on a mammogram that would not have happened under the new guidelines. Some people will be confused because they don't understand what the downsides could possibly be to the early detection of breast cancer. It's very difficult for people to ignore their personal situations in thinking about what should happen as a matter of policy. But emerging science tells us that we need to try to do that if we're going to get to the best place in terms of both reducing deaths from breast cancer and minimizing the harms that occur when we do mammography screening."
Patients - including those who may feel they have benefited from BSE or mammography-need to reflect that all medical procedures carry risks as well as benefits. So what is the potential harm of near-universal screening mammography? Brenner highlights four problem areas:
1. False negative results: These occur when a mammogram indicates that a woman is without cancer, yet it is actually present. (This is what happened to New York Times author Gail Collins, as she reported in a recent column on the controversy.)
2. False positives results: The mammogram indicates a problem, yet a subsequent biopsy (tissue sample) shows that there is no cancer present. A big relief-but the whole experience results in fear, stress, expense, and physical and emotional scarring.
3. Mammography involves x-rays and x-rays have been called the "complete carcinogen," because they can both initiate and promote cancer growth. A few years ago, researchers at Columbia University wrote: "There is evidence that low energy X rays as used in mammographic screening produce an increased biological risk per unit dose relative to higher energy photons. At low doses, the increased risk appears to be of a factor of 2….For older women, the benefit is still likely to outweigh the radiation risk. For women less than 50 years of age, however, this increase in the estimated radiation risk might indicate a somewhat later age than currently suggested, by about 5 to10 years, at which to recommend commencement of routine breast screening" (Brenner 2002).
4. Overdiagnosis of "pseudo-malignancies," i.e., the discovery of non-malignant abnormalities that would never progress to outright cancer. Finding pseudo-malignancies swells the ranks of "cancer survivors," swelling the ranks and coffers of various non-profit agencies. Adding pseudo-malignancies to real cancers also has the side effect of improving the alleged "cure rate" of the disease. That's because almost all of these people will be "cured" (albeit of a disease that they did not really have). But without mammograms these people would never have known they had a non-consequential slight abnormality. My favorite author on the topic is H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, Professor of Medicine and Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, and author of Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not, and Here's Why
In the past, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and the American College of Radiology (ACR) all recommended annual mammography for all women over the age of 40. The statistic that was most commonly quoted is that by detecting breast cancer early, before it has become large enough to be clinically apparent as an obvious lump in the breast, mammography reduces the mortality rate from breast cancer by 20 to 30 percent. So fixed has this statistic become in the minds of women, the medical profession and the media that by repetition alone it has now attained the status of unimpeachable fact. A closer examination of the data yields a somewhat less certain picture. The benefits of mammography are much smaller than we've been led to believe.
Professor Samuel Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition has tirelessly drawn attention to the radiation risks of screening mammography, has pointed out that sobering fact that over a period of 10 years, a pre-menopausal woman undergoing annual mammograms receives almost half the dose of radiation that was measurable within a mile of the Hiroshima bomb epicenter. (Note: I am a board member of the CPC.)
I too have been a long-time skeptic on the benefits of routine mammography. In my book The Cancer Industry (published as the Cancer Syndrome in 1980) I wrote critically about this mass screening program. I thought it would do more harm than good. In particular, I wrote about the work of John Bailar, MD, editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and his early and vociferous opposition to the mammography program.
A few months ago I also published a Special Report on Mammography, Biopsy and the Detection of Breast Cancer. Here is what Joel Evans, MD, founder and director of The Center for Women's Health, Darien, CT, and assistant clinical professor, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York said about my report:
"Ralph Moss has written a scholarly and frightening treatise that is a 'must read' for both the general public and all health professionals. It has the capacity to transform our approach to breast cancer screening and diagnosis. It is a remarkable gift to the women of the world."
We are now offering this report for $9.95, half the usual price. To order our special mammography report, please click here.
--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.
References
I highly recommend Prof. Aronowitz's excellent op-ed in the New York Times, "Addicted to Mammograms," Nov. 20, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html
American Cancer Society statement on mammography: http://tinyurl.com/yk8q8fu
Barbara Brenner and Breast Cancer Action's statement: http://tinyurl.com/yhoqq68
Brenner DJ, Sawant SG, et al. Routine screening mammography: how important is the radiation-risk side of the benefit-risk equation? Int J Radiat Biol. 2002;78:1065-1067
National Cancer Institute newsletter:
http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/111709/page2
USPSTF position paper:
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full
HHS Secretary's statement:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/11/20091118a.html
A Third Spoke in the Wheel of Wellness -- Attitude
Let's consider a third spoke of the Wheel of Wellness – ATTITUDE – optimistic and able to cope when “life happens,” a positive outlook on life
Some of the concepts related to attitude are hope, patience, trust, behavior when caught in sin, and behavior under stress. Study these related passages of Scripture:
Psalm 31:24 Be strong and let your heart take courage, All you who hope in the LORD.
Psalm 43:5 Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why are you disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him, The help of my countenance and my God.
Psalm 130:7 O Israel, hope in the LORD; For with the LORD there is lovingkindness, And with Him is abundant redemption.
Psalm 146:5 How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the LORD his God,
Jeremiah 17:7 Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD And whose trust is the LORD.
Hebrews 6:11 – 19 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU." And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
King Saul was both impatient and disobedient in the events recorded in I Samuel 13:8 – 14 Samuel had told him to meet him on a certain day so Samuel could offer sacrifices for Saul. Saul grew tired of waiting and proceeded to offer the burnt offering himself, a priestly duty. Samuel explained the penalty for his error in verses 13-14: Samuel said to Saul, "You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, for now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. "But now your kingdom shall not endure The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you."
Contrast the patience of David as he recorded in the Psalms:
Psalm 27:14 Wait for the LORD; Be strong and let your heart take courage; Yes, wait for the LORD.
Psalm 37:34 Wait for the LORD and keep His way, And He will exalt you to inherit the land; When the wicked are cut off, you will see it.
Contrast the response of Saul and David when each was discovered to have sinned:
1 Samuel 15 records Saul's disobedience. In verse 3, God told Saul to “...strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him, but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” But when (verse 9) Saul spared Agag, the king of Amalek, and the best of the sheep, oxen, fatlings, lambs, and all that was good, Samuel came to him again. At first Saul claimed that he had obeyed, then he blamed the soldiers, then finally admitted that he was also wrong. It seems to me that Saul was not sorry he had disobeyed, but was sorry that he got caught.
When David committed adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 11-12), David first tried to hide his sin by having her husband killed in battle. When confronted by the prophet Nathan, David acknowledged (12:13), "I have sinned against the LORD " And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.” David recorded his remorse in Psalm 51:2 – 4 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.
Contrast the response of Saul and David when they were each subjected to intense stress:
See I Samuel 28 – Saul became so distressed that he resorted to a medium for guidance; that is hardly representative of good health and balance. The next day he died in battle, far more concerned that the enemy might torture or mutilate him than whether he could win the battle.
See II Samuel 15-19 When his son Absalom declared himself king, David ran for his life (15:30). Then when he learned that Absalom had been killed in battle, he grieved bitterly (18:33). Finally, in response to the prodding of Joab, his army commander, David composed himself (19:8) so those who had rescued his kingdom and his life could see him.
A good attitude is very supportive of wellness; a bad attitude undermines wellness. The person who is hopeful, patient, trusting, aware of his own shortcomings, and is able to operate despite stress is generally more likely to be healthy than the impatient, suspicious pessimist who blames everyone else for his problems.
This, then, is a third spoke in the Wheel of Wellness. How well is your wheel turning so far?
Scripture from NASB
Some of the concepts related to attitude are hope, patience, trust, behavior when caught in sin, and behavior under stress. Study these related passages of Scripture:
Psalm 31:24 Be strong and let your heart take courage, All you who hope in the LORD.
Psalm 43:5 Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why are you disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him, The help of my countenance and my God.
Psalm 130:7 O Israel, hope in the LORD; For with the LORD there is lovingkindness, And with Him is abundant redemption.
Psalm 146:5 How blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, Whose hope is in the LORD his God,
Jeremiah 17:7 Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD And whose trust is the LORD.
Hebrews 6:11 – 19 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU." And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,
King Saul was both impatient and disobedient in the events recorded in I Samuel 13:8 – 14 Samuel had told him to meet him on a certain day so Samuel could offer sacrifices for Saul. Saul grew tired of waiting and proceeded to offer the burnt offering himself, a priestly duty. Samuel explained the penalty for his error in verses 13-14: Samuel said to Saul, "You have acted foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, for now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. "But now your kingdom shall not endure The LORD has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the LORD has appointed him as ruler over His people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you."
Contrast the patience of David as he recorded in the Psalms:
Psalm 27:14 Wait for the LORD; Be strong and let your heart take courage; Yes, wait for the LORD.
Psalm 37:34 Wait for the LORD and keep His way, And He will exalt you to inherit the land; When the wicked are cut off, you will see it.
Contrast the response of Saul and David when each was discovered to have sinned:
1 Samuel 15 records Saul's disobedience. In verse 3, God told Saul to “...strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him, but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” But when (verse 9) Saul spared Agag, the king of Amalek, and the best of the sheep, oxen, fatlings, lambs, and all that was good, Samuel came to him again. At first Saul claimed that he had obeyed, then he blamed the soldiers, then finally admitted that he was also wrong. It seems to me that Saul was not sorry he had disobeyed, but was sorry that he got caught.
When David committed adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 11-12), David first tried to hide his sin by having her husband killed in battle. When confronted by the prophet Nathan, David acknowledged (12:13), "I have sinned against the LORD " And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.” David recorded his remorse in Psalm 51:2 – 4 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, And my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.
Contrast the response of Saul and David when they were each subjected to intense stress:
See I Samuel 28 – Saul became so distressed that he resorted to a medium for guidance; that is hardly representative of good health and balance. The next day he died in battle, far more concerned that the enemy might torture or mutilate him than whether he could win the battle.
See II Samuel 15-19 When his son Absalom declared himself king, David ran for his life (15:30). Then when he learned that Absalom had been killed in battle, he grieved bitterly (18:33). Finally, in response to the prodding of Joab, his army commander, David composed himself (19:8) so those who had rescued his kingdom and his life could see him.
A good attitude is very supportive of wellness; a bad attitude undermines wellness. The person who is hopeful, patient, trusting, aware of his own shortcomings, and is able to operate despite stress is generally more likely to be healthy than the impatient, suspicious pessimist who blames everyone else for his problems.
This, then, is a third spoke in the Wheel of Wellness. How well is your wheel turning so far?
Scripture from NASB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)