I have decided that it is far simpler to accept that the man, Jesus, existed. I won’t ever bother arguing with any Christian apologist that Jesus did not exist ever again. Do you hear that Christians? I accept that Jesus was a historical person.
In accepting this I do nothing but move myself away from a currently controversial (in historical academia) view that Jesus is a complete myth. They can no longer call me a Christ-myther and compare me to holocaust deniers (a very very illogical comparison).
Now with all of that argument out of the way, I can move onto a more simple argument where the Christian apologists have absolutely no leg to stand on. The whole point that Jesus was nothing but an ordinary man, who tricked people into believing he was a man-deity.
I accept, against my critical thinking, that Jesus existed. I in no way at all accept any of the ridiculous stories about him. I don’t accept that he healed people miraculously, walked on water, turned water to wine, created large amounts of food from a small amount of food, cursed a fig tree, or was raised from the dead. These are all completely moronic things to believe and I would be completely giving up on my critical thinking to accept that he did any of these things.
The man Jesus performed zero miracles in his lifetime. He was a plain man who managed to make himself exceptionally famous. That is it. Even in accepting that Jesus was a historical figure I can still point out that Christianity, like every other religion, is complete nonsense. This is simply because of the above. None of those acts performed by Jesus are historically accurate and to argue that they are just makes you completely fucking deluded.
Admitting that Jesus was an historical person makes no changes to my life or belief. A Christian admitting that the above acts performed by Jesus are false makes them no longer a Christian. If they admit that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the whole point of that religious story is destroyed. That is why they can’t do it. The reason I can’t accept those miracles is because they are outright irrational.
I have previously written about bed-sharing with an infant, in the terms of it being strange to people and explaining why I disagree with that point of view; however I plan to discuss its safety here. I not too long ago was involved in a discussion where the end result was talking with someone against bed-sharing no matter what.
I find bed-sharing a really bizarre thing to fight against. I understand that many of the people arguing against it are people who have lost a child in a bed-sharing circumstance. A lot are also against it because they are involved in determining how the death occurred. The problem with the arguments of all these people is they are truly arguing against unsafe sleeping.
There is absolutely no evidence to show that bed-sharing is inherently dangerous. There is evidence that shows there are definite benefits to it, a little more on this later. The problem is finding out the negatives and attempting to have them removed from the situation. The problem with these anti-bed-sharing advocates is that they are stopping a proper dialogue from happening. They are working on stamping out something that lots of parents do, rather than working to educate parents on safe ways to bed-share.
When we went to our pre-natal class they explained the birthing process fairly well and talked about other moderately useful things. They did talk about SIDS, but what they discussed wasn’t anything that you wouldn’t have heard if you read the newspaper regularly. I don’t understand why there was no discussion on bed-sharing or other forms of co-sleeping. I believe they should be discussing with new parents that many experts argue against bed-sharing but if you feel you have no other option, here is the safest way to perform bed-sharing. Education is more important than telling people not to do something they are most likely to give into doing.
Now onto what I believe should be taught, in terms of safe bed-sharing:
- Do not wear loose fitting clothing.
- Do not use sheets, blankets or quilts and make sure the fitted sheets aren’t loose.
- Keep pillows well away from your child.
- Do not consume ANY drugs.
- Only sleep on a mattressed bed, never on a water bed, sofa, armchair, etc…
- Do not place anything (including a wall) next to the side of the bed your child is sleeping on.
- Place your child on their back.
- Have long hair, tie it out the way.
- Morbidly obese… don’t do it.
- Tobacco smokers should also avoid bed-sharing.
This is just an example of what should be included in the teaching but if you follow this your child will be much safer.
In the media when they are talking about this subject they are very much on the side of the experts. It doesn’t appear to be a critical look at what is actually happening. Experts announce it is dangerous to bed-share no matter what, without giving any explanation. Often the explanation are pathetic and like on The Project tonight (12/03/2012) they make outrageous statements like, “You wouldn’t put your child into a car with out strapping them in.” Straw man, anyone?
Another problem with the experts opinion is that it goes against evidence. Like this paper that finds Mother-infant bed sharing promotes infant arousals. This one finds there was no significant relation between routine bed sharing and the sudden infant death syndrome. This is just a couple of examples. I have read more when I originally started writing this a few months ago but I didn’t take note of them. I found it very difficult to find good evidence against bed-sharing in my searching.
If you are at wits end with your child and you feel that feeding them to sleep in your bed is the only thing you can do, make sure you do it as safely as possible.
It’s like this: another old building is getting knocked down and replaced with a modern more useful building. There is outrage in the community and petitions signed. After this, sometimes the building gets to stay standing and so does innovation. This, I think is incredibly stupid.
I think the majority of heritage listed buildings need to be removed from heritage listing. I don’t even know how the arguments for heritage listing are even good. Is it something like, “We need to keep this building because it has a lot of meaning and history for people in the area.” Who cares? Seriously, what good does it do to keep an old building erected?
Shouldn’t we be replacing old inefficient buildings with new efficient buildings? New buildings that are environmentally friendly, built with ease of heating/cooling in mind? You want to remember the old buildings, take some photos and videos of it. It is so very unimportant that it be left standing because it means a lot to people and is pretty.
This is a big problem in Adelaide. We are constantly being held back by people who think it is best to keep an old, falling down building standing because it holds sentimental value. This is just holding back Adelaide from keeping current. We don’t have any state-of-the-art designed buildings because everything must stay as it is.
This is something that I believe really needs to change. These old building may look nice and hold sentimental value but they are often impractical and constantly in need of repair. Shouldn’t we be building new buildings that are of more use and better designed? I get tired of seeing in the local news that another building is being replaced by a new more useful building and people are petition against this. It doesn’t make sense.