(Originally posted on Thursday, 13 July 2017; updated significantly on 21 April 2019)
I updated this post significantly by adding some graphs at the end of the original post (which now is at about half of the present post).
Recently I “discovered” what glycemic index really means and I am pissed off because nobody has pointed it out clearly to me. It is NOT explained properly even on the Internet sites where there are whole tables with glycemic indexes for many different foods!
My wife suffered from gestational diabetes (diabetes during pregnancy) and she ate mostly foods with low glycemic index. Unfortunately, even though she had changed her diet very significantly she still ended up using insulin. She did her own thorough search about diabetes on the Internet then, so I didn't analyzed the topic myself. The only thing I remember from that time is that “white bread is bad because it has a high glycemic index”. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. To make a definite opinion I had to understand what the glycemic index really is.
The problem is that hardly anybody explains the methodology behind the glycemic index OR sometimes the methodology is explained incorrectly!!! What’s worse some Internet sites don’t give precise numbers and just group different foods into 3 categories based on their glycemic indexes (good, medium or bad). Even worse, some isolated results for some foods are so strange (compared to other sites) that there had to be a mistake somewhere (as always, you shouldn’t base your knowledge on just one Internet site).
Below there are glycemic indexes for several foods that are rather universal, except for honey. It turns out that the glycemic index of honey depends heavily on what kind of honey it is. Some honeys are mainly glucose, which makes the index very high, and some other honeys have much more fructose in them, which makes the index much lower.
Glycemic index (GI):
1. Glucose (the base for all the glycemic indexes): 100
2. Baguette French bread: 95
3. White wheat flour bread (average): 75
4. Honey (average): 70
5. Sucrose (white sugar, table sugar): 65 (!!!)
6. 100% Whole Grain bread: 50
7. Pumpkin seeds: 25
8. Fructose: 20
9. Mayonnaise (classic, homemade): 0
Looking at the results above some people may come to some strange conclusions, for example that white wheat flour bread is worse than white sugar. Or that any amount of such bread is bad just because it has a “high glycemic index”. Or that it is safe to eat lots of fructose (pure sugar from fruits) just because it has a “low glycemic index”. Some Internet sites really say such things, but I always felt that there is something wrong there. Now I know what the problem is – it is the methodology behind the glycemic index or rather the meaning of the results given by this methodology.
“The glycemic index of a food is defined as the incremental area under the two-hour blood glucose response curve (AUC) following a 12-hour fast and ingestion of a food with a certain quantity of available carbohydrate (usually 50 g).”
Basically it’s a relative comparison of one kind of food to glucose as far as blood results are concerned measured systematically in the first 2 hours after eating the food. At the end of this post there are some graphs that show how the glycemic index is calculated.
The problem is that it does NOT compare the same amounts of foods!!!
For example let’s analyze the glycemic index of bread calculated in reference to 50 g of glucose. In a typical bread there are around 50 % carbohydrates, so to deliver 50 g of carbohydrates a person needs to eat at least 100 g of bread. And this is how the glycemic index of bread is calculated – after eating at least 100 g of bread. But it is calculated relatively to the effect of 50 g of glucose! And this is exactly what makes glycemic index so unnatural. And vastly misunderstood.
What’s worse the methodology uses the term “available carbohydrate”, which means that the amount of eaten food was even bigger than it may seem at first. Let’s ASSUME that 20 % of carbohydrates in bread can’t be digested, so only 80 % of carbohydrates in bread can be labelled as “available carbohydrates”. It means that there are only 40 % “available carbohydrates” in bread. So to calculated the glycemic index of bread a person needs to eat 125 g of bread (125 * 40 % = 50 g). So, the glycemic index of bread actually shows the effect of eating MUCH more bread (125 g) than 50 g of glucose that it is referred to. Strange isn’t it?
On top of that, or should I say at the base of that, there is a problem that is completely ignored: it is hard to precisely calculate the percentage of carbohydrates in every food and it is even harder to precisely calculate the percentage of “available carbohydrates” in every food. Different calculation of a particular glycemic index may be carried out with different assumptions about the amount of “available carbohydrates” in the analyzed food. It would explain why some glycemic indexes of the same food are sometimes so different from each other.
The truth is that it is MUCH better to eat 50 g of ANY bread than 50 g of white sugar just because there are only around 25 g of carbohydrates in 50 g of bread (compared to 50 g carbohydrates in 50 g of white sugar).
Some people might say that my way of thinking is wrong because the amount of delivered carbohydrates is different. I disagree. I believe that we SHOULD compare foods this exact way. The problem in most of today’s societies is that people weigh too much and it is caused by them eating too much, especially too much carbohydrates. When people start eating less carbohydrates it will be good for them. Of course we shouldn't avoid carbohydrates completely, because it is the main source of energy for people, but on the other hand we should not “maintain” the same level of carbohydrates consumption when we see that our weight is not what it should be.
“The glycemic load (GL) of food is a number that estimates how much the food will raise a person's blood glucose level after eating it. One unit of glycemic load approximates the effect of consuming one gram of glucose.[1] Glycemic load accounts for how much carbohydrate is in the food and how much each gram of carbohydrate in the food raises blood glucose levels. Glycemic load is based on the glycemic index (GI), and is calculated by multiplying the grams of available carbohydrate in the food times the food's GI and then dividing by 100.”
The above description is strange, but the idea is to compare the same amount of food instead the same amount of “available carbohydrates”. The formula for the glycemic load is actually pretty obvious:
GL = GI * % of “available carbohydrates” in a particular food
In the above example (with the GI of bread) it would be like this:
GL = GI * 0.4,
which is consistent with the actual amounts of foods used – the GI of bread compared the effect of 125 g of bread with the effect of 50 g of glucose, so to make the foods comparable as far as they actual weights are concerned we have to makes this calculation:
GI * 50 g / 125 g = GI * 0.4.
To calculate glycemic loads for the foods mentioned above I needed the percentages of “available” carbohydrates in the foods, but I found on the Internet only tables with percentages of overall carbohydrates (sums of “available” and “unavailable” carbohydrates per 100 g). What's worse the percentages for the same foods were sometimes very different from each other (on different Internet sites). I decided to take the MAXIMUM overall carbohydrates percentages that I found on the net, which means that I calculated the WORST possible values of glycemic loads.
Overall carbohydrates percentages in particular foods:
1-3. Glucose (the base for all the glycemic indexes): 100 %
1-3. Sucrose (white sugar, table sugar): 100 %
1-3. Fructose: 100 %
4. Honey: 80 %
5. Baguette French bread: 60 %
6. White wheat flour bread: 56 %
7. 100% Whole Grain bread: 50 %
8. Pumpkin seeds: 18 %
9. Mayonnaise (classic, homemade): 0 %
Glycemic loads (relative to glucose):
1. Glucose (the base for all the glycemic indexes): 100
2. Sucrose (white sugar, table sugar): 65
3. Baguette French bread: 57
4. Honey (average): 56
5. White wheat flour bread (average): 42 (!!!)
6. 100% Whole Grain bread: 25
7. Fructose: 20
8. Pumpkin seeds: 4.5
9. Mayonnaise (classic, homemade): 0
The list for the glycemic load is significantly different than the list for glycemic index! Now it is clear that “white bread” is not so “lethal” after all. Its effect is only 42 % of the effect of glucose and 65 % of the effect of white sugar. Sure the 100% Whole Grain bread is better than “white bread” as far as glycemic load is concerned, but what do the numbers above actually mean? They mean that instead of eating 1 slice of white wheat flour bread you “can” eat 1.68 slices of 100% Whole Grain bread (42 / 25 = 1.68) AND the effect in the first 2 hours after eating will be exactly the same. However this “can” in fact should be said “can't”. Why? Because the glycemic loads regard ONLY what will happen in the first 2 hours after eating and ignore completely everything else. For example glycemic loads don't “show” what will happen in the 3rd, 4th or later hours after eating! Remember that all those “available carbohydrates” don’t disappear, but are just digested at a different rate! They will simply “load” some other points in time. get back to this issue later.
At the end of this post there are some graphs that show what happens AFTER the first 2 hours after eating.
I noticed yet another strange thing – on the Internet there are some tables with glycemic loads for different foods, but they are calculated for “servings” of different weights! This is ridiculous! It makes the foods still incomparable! However, that made me come up with a cool idea – I decided to calculate glycemic loads for the weight equal to the weight of glucose that is usually used to calculate the glycemic index (50 g).
Glycemic loads (relative to glucose) for “servings” of 50 g:
1. Glucose (the base for all the glycemic indexes): 50
2. Sucrose (white sugar, table sugar): 32.5
3. Baguette French bread: 28.5
4. Honey (average): 28
5. White wheat flour bread (average): 21
6. 100% Whole Grain bread: 12.5
7. Fructose: 10
8. Pumpkin seeds: 2.25
9. Mayonnaise (classic, homemade): 0
Now we can calculate how many grams of food a person can eat to get the same effect in the first 2 hours after eating (relatively to 50 g of glucose):
1. Glucose (the base for all the glycemic indexes): 50 g
2. Sucrose (white sugar, table sugar): 77 g
3. Baguette French bread: 88 g
4. Honey (average): 89 g
5. White wheat flour bread (average): 119 g
6. 100% Whole Grain bread: 200 g
7. Fructose: 250 g (!!!)
8. Pumpkin seeds: 1111 g (over 1 kg!)
9. Mayonnaise (classic, homemade): infinity!?
Please notice that the numbers are consistent with the example with the breads: 200 g / 119 g = 1.68, which still means that instead of eating 1 slice of white wheat flour bread you “can” eat 1.68 slices of 100% Whole Grain bread AND the effect in the first 2 hours after eating will be exactly the same. As I wrote earlier this “can” in fact should be said “can't”. Let’s analyze a little more the example with the breads. Those 1.68 slices of 100% Whole Grain bread will actually make your carbohydrates consumption (50 % * 1.68 slices * the weight of 1 slice = 0.86 of the weight of 1 slice) significantly higher that when eating just 1 slice of “white bread” (56 % * 1 slice * the weight of 1 slice = 0.56 of the weight of 1 slice). I made similar calculations relatively to 50 g of glucose.
The amount of carbohydrates consumption leading to the same effect in the first 2 hours after eating (relatively to 50 g of glucose):
1. Fructose: 250 g (!!!)
2. Pumpkin seeds: 200 g
3. 100% Whole Grain bread: 100 g (!!!)
4. Sucrose (white sugar, table sugar): 77 g
5. Honey (range): 71 g
6. White wheat flour bread (average): 67 g
7. Baguette French bread: 53 g
8. Glucose (the base for all the glycemic indexes): 50 g
9. Mayonnaise (classic, homemade): 0
Interestingly after I made all those steps in my analysis I ended up with a list that could be calculated from the first list with the assumption that the base is 50 g of glucose. Bravo me! But I would never understand the meaning of the last list without all those little steps I made earlier, especially the list for the glycemic load.
Again the numbers are consistent with the example with the breads: 100 g / 67 g = 1.5 = 0.86 of the weight of 1 slice / 0.56 of the weight of 1 slice.
What this last list means? It means that eating lots of foods with low glycemic index or low glycemic load actually makes the overall situation worse! Don’t fix yourself on the glycemic index nor on the glycemic load! They have to be analyzed together with the overall carbohydrate consumption. In fact the glycemic index and the glycemic load are a secondary issue, behind controlling the overall carbohydrate consumption.
Basically the most important thing is the overall amount of eaten foods, especially foods with high carbohydrates percentages, mostly sugars. And the foods with low glycemic loads only help you prevent rapid increases and decreases of the level of glucose in your blood. And that’s it. Eating one and a half slice of ANY bread every 3 hours is usually more than enough to keep you satiated, especially when it is eaten with a little cooked meat and/or a little vegetables. Consumption of big amounts of food should be generally avoided – even lunch or dinner should be eaten in modest amounts. The same goes for fruits and “sweet vegetables”. The rule “Eat little, but often” is still valid. In fact it is as valid as ever.
Obviously mayonnaise can't be eaten in big amounts either, even though both its glycemic index and its glycemic load are zero. I myself eat mayonnaise regularly in small amounts and I believe that people should NOT avoid it completely.
Some time ago I've become a “fan” of pumpkin seeds. Apparently they are one of the “super foods” and their low glycemic index and their very low glycemic load are only two of many of their virtues: http://superfoodprofiles.com/raw-pumpkin-seeds-nutrition
PS. Analysing carbohydrates consumption is much more terrifying than thought. I bought a small kitchen scale that allows taring and weighted several foods and liquids. Then I made some calculations and I got one shocking result.
In one mug (250 g) of very “healthy” juice (based on 44 % carrots, 11 % apples and 9 % oranges, with some cane sugar) there were 26 grams of pure sugar! This may seem like not a big deal, but I checked how much is that compared to an average teaspoon – it's a little more than 4 (FOUR) heaped teaspoons or a little more than 8 (EIGHT) level teaspoons!!! That's around 10 times as much sugar as I put in tea in the same mug!!!
Let's compare the “healthy” juice to the “very unhealthy white bread”. There are only 20 grams of carbohydrates in one slice of “white bread” (that weights around 35 grams), compared to 26 grams of carbohydrates in one mug of the juice. More importantly one slice of “white bread” will definitely keep you more satiated than one mug of “sweet juice”. The truth is that “healthy” juices can in fact be a carbohydrate trap, not to mention other “sweet waters”.
I think that we should drink liquids just to deliver water to our bodies not carbohydrates. Sure there can (or even should) be a little sugar in the water (for example in the form of concentrated syrup) but ONLY 3 grams per mug. Not 26 grams per mug!
UPDATE (Sunday, 21 April 2019):
Originally I thought that the glycemic index (GI) shows what happens exactly after 2 hours after eating, but the truth is that it shows what happens in the 2 hours after eating. I modified the text above to use this precise phrase (“in the 2 hours after eating”), but it had no influence on the rest of the text – my conclusions are exactly the same.
To explain what the phrase “in the 2 hours after eating” really means I decided to show you how the glycemic index is calculated by using graphs.
As the base for my graphs I used this graph that I found on the Internet:
Please remember that this graph is for a HEALTHY person, NOT for a person who suffers from diabetes (I will get back to this issue later).
I added a third curve – the glucose curve that is the base for the calculations of all glycemic indexes (the curves may be a little too high and somewhat twisted, but it actually made it easier to draw more complex graphs that can be found later).
In fact it’s the area under the curve that matters! For glucose it’s the area marked with yellow:
Please notice that glucose is “used up” completely in the first 2 hours after eating. This phrase (“used up”) means that the “extra” blood sugar disappears from the blood. By the way: in case of glucose much of the “extra” blood sugar is transformed into fat. It goes like this – after you eat pure glucose (or after you drink glucose dissolved in water) it is absorbed into the blood very quickly (glucose is the smallest carbohydrate, so it doesn’t have to be digested at all), it rises the blood sugar level above the NORMAL blood sugar level (sugar is constantly present in your blood, because it is the main source of energy for the whole organism), a quick increase in the sugar blood level causes the insulin to be released into the blood in big amounts (the more “extra” sugar is present in the blood the more insulin is released) and the insulin helps to turn the “extra” blood sugar into fat (something that is “safe” for the blood – very high blood sugar levels are extremely dangerous in the long run, so your body HAS to act very quickly).
Again: the most important thing to remember about the glycemic index is the phrase “in the 2 hours after eating”. It means that when calculating the area for other foods only the area on the left of the 2-hours line is taken into account (marked with orange and green) and everything after the 2-hour line is discarded (marked with red).
The glycemic index of the “orange” food is calculated this way:
(orange area / yellow area) * 100
The glycemic index of the “green” food is calculated this way:
(green area / yellow area) * 100
The glycemic index of the glucose is always 100:
(yellow area / yellow area) * 100 = 1 * 100 = 100
Please notice that the total area for the “orange” food (orange area PLUS the appropriate red area) and the total area for the “green” food (green area PLUS the appropriate red area) should be more or less the same as the yellow area. Why? Because the glycemic index compares the same amounts of AVAILABLE carbohydrates (the carbohydrates that can be sooner or later absorbed into the blood). Actually I suspect that the yellow area should be the SMALLEST, because the amount of released insulin in case of glucose is the biggest! I have no idea how much smaller it should be, so I leave it as it is.
Please notice that on the Internet there are many graphs for the glycemic index that don’t make much (or any) sense. For example:
The first picture above shows that for the low glycemic index food there is some “extra” blood sugar left at the end of the 2nd hour after eating, but it seems to be much too small. By the way: any “negative” area (an area under the normal sugar blood level) for extremely high glycemic index foods is NOT taken into account (it does NOT influence the glycemic index, even though it’s negative).
The second graph above makes no sense at all – what the hell happened with all the remaining available carbohydrates of the foods?! They seem to have disappeared completely! All of these foods have glycemic index below 100, so there should be some “cut-off” areas to the right of the 2-hour line.
The lack of precise graphs with blood sugar results after the end of the 2nd hour after eating is infuriating. Are there no scientific studies about this issue at all?
Beside the picture I based my examples on, I found only a handful of pictures that are more or less “believable” to me. Here are just two of them:
I think that the size of the negative area on the first graph above is much too big and I think that white bread (mentioned on the second picture) causes increase in blood sugar not only in the first 2 hours, but also after that point of time – the glycemic index of white bread is 75, so there must be a “cut-off” area of 25 % of the whole. It seems to me that somebody took a graph for glucose and labelled it (incorrectly) “white bread”.
The red areas on my graphs are actually very important, because they show that carbohydrates can “load” some other moments in time, not only the first two hours after eating. Let’s analyse what would be blood sugar levels after eating 3 meals after 3 hours each. I made a rough estimate based on the crucial points of the particular curves:
Please remember that these graphs are for a HEALTHY person, NOT for a person who suffers from diabetes (I get back to this issue later).
So, a healthy person can benefit from relatively low GI foods, but it is definitely NOT important to eat the “lowest possible” GI foods. Actually it’s enough to avoid the highest GI foods OR to eat them in small amounts!
Please notice that you should NOT switch from eating “normal” amounts of high GI foods to eating BIGGER amounts of low GI foods! The glycemic index does NOT show you how much you can eat! By eating very big amounts of low GI foods you will end up with a high blood sugar level that is almost CONSTANT! A very bad idea. Here is a graph that shows what would happen if a healthy person started eating ONLY 50 % more low glycemic index food (including more „healthy” fruit juices):
As you can see in the long run the peaks of the blood sugar level are a little HIGHER than for normal amounts of high glycemic food AND the MINIMUM blood sugar level is almost as high as the normal PEAK of low glycemic index food!
How about people with diabetes? Their problem is that their body releases too little insulin into the blood, so the rise in blood sugar level is bigger and lasts much longer. Here are some graphs I found on the internet:
Well, there are different cases of diabetes (milder or more severe), so I had to make some assumptions. I decided to increase the height of all the curves only by 50 % (not to overdo it) and to increase the length of the curves in a way that would not “harm” the low glycemic index foods. Here are graphs showing what would be blood sugar levels after eating 3 or 4 meals after 3 hours each:
Please remember that these graphs show what would happen after eating the same amounts of available carbohydrates. Here is a graph that shows what would happen if a diabetic person started eating 50 % more low glycemic index food (including more „healthy” fruit juices):
As you can see eating bigger amounts of low glycemic index foods is actually as bad as eating normal amounts of high glycemic index foods. It's the AMOUNT of food that counts the most! Low glycemic index foods only help a diabetic person to avoid spikes in blood sugar levels.
The graphs above explain why eating big amounts of foods, even the low glycemic index foods is very BAD for diabetic people.
Halloween happens on 31 October – one day before All Saints' Day. Halloween is a total opposition to All Saints' Day which is one of the most important days in Poland.
Every year on 1 November (All Saints' Day) millions of Poles visit cemeteries and light candles on the graves of their dead relatives and in places of special memory of people whose graves are far away.
All Saints' Day is a day when everybody gets thoughtful about things that are really important. Not about stupid jokes, not about work, not about career, not about money, not about hedonistic pleasures, but about life in general, about families, about relatives, about things that made us the people we are today.
Some people claim it's a sad day, but I totally disagree. It's a day when relatives meet together and never quarrel. It's a day to remember good things about people from our past. It's a day full of peace. Of course people who have recently lost a close person have a hard time, but they would have a hard time anyway.
I like to go to the biggest cemetery in the evening, when it's already dark, to see thousands of burning candles. Unforgettable feeling. On almost every grave there are several candles, and in places of special memory there hundreds of them.
Halloween is a disgrace compared to All Saints' Day in Poland.
Below there are some pictures I took today (on 1 November 2014). Unfortunately my camera is too weak and they are somewhat blurred.
The graves on the first picture are random – they are not graves of my relatives. The next pictures are from places of special memory. The words on the third picture are “TO VICTIMS OF WARS AND VIOLENCE”. On the fifth picture there are words “TO MEMORY OF DEPORTEES TO SIBERIA” and a map of Russia with marked places of forced labour camps where many Poles were deported. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybirak
Several days ago a phrase popped up in my head that made everything clear to me – the best phrase to build the proper picture of asceticism is this: “Asceticism is neither the key nor the goal”.
The sheer fact that there are named many different types of asceticism proves that the concept of asceticism is not so simple after all. Moreover the main definitions of asceticism concentrate on religious reasons and/or avoidance of pleasures, which is a mistake in my opinion (a mistake in definition, not in behaviour).
With the above phrase in my head I imagined an example that shows what asceticism is all about. Let's imagine a person who is “materially” ascetic, but considers it as a way to reach a bigger goal – a way that should make him (or her) calm/happy/good/holy/whatever. He (or she) owns only basic commodities and refuses to get anything more, but in fact he does it against himself – he would like to own more, but he sacrifices himself for “a bigger goal”. Would such a person became calm/happy/good/holy/whatever? I doubt it.
Now let's imagine a person who is “spiritually” ascetic and is free of any kind of desire, except for a desire to own some basic commodities in order to satisfy his (or her) basic needs. If he doesn't desire to own more than some basic commodities then he will own only basic commodities, just like the first person. The difference is the fact that the second person is calm/happy/good/holy/whatever because he doesn't do it against himself. So his “material” asceticism is the RESULT of his “spiritual” asceticism. And what is his “spiritual” asceticism? It is his state of mind. Just a state of mind. It's neither the key nor the goal.
Please notice that this “spiritual” asceticism has nothing to do with a religion or pleasures, but with a simple concept of desire. In the above case it was a desire to own things, but the same example can be used for any KIND of desire. And this is what a true asceticism is all about – being free from desires.
Obviously we can't reject all our desires because we have to eat, breathe, have a place to live, have a family and have a little fun too, but the more desires we reject the more happy we become. “Let's enjoy the little things, for in them the formula for happiness is written.” With a true asceticism the joy from little things comes in a kind of automatic way.
Almost every human activity is based on a desire – without a desire there would be no willful action at all. If there is a desire then we can control it in most cases. There are some obviously “obligatory” desires, like a desire to eat or a desire to drink water, but a desire to eat a lot of foods, a desire to eat sweets or a desire to drink alcohol are the kinds of desire that are NOT “obligatory”.
In my case the sheer fact that I can identify a desire makes this desire much weaker – it's embarrassing to realise that you are a slave to your own desires. And I can identify a desire practically always. In fact it's very easy when you actually think about it.
I must point out that there are also positive desires that turn into something negative when they are too strong. For example reading books. Nowadays fewer and fewer people read books, so it is generally a very positive thing when a person reads books. But if he (or she) reads them all the time and neglects other things then it is clearly a bad thing. Similar examples can be given for anything that is considered positive and in extreme cases it concerns even religion.
I'll give you two more examples. Just two. When I see that somebody, for example my wife or my child, has just done a thing that was illogical, impractical or that it could have been done more efficiently I feel a very strong desire to tell them about it – to explain it to them – to give them an advice. Usually this “advice” is considered as a criticism and makes them angry, no matter if I'm right or not. Over the years I realised that in most cases it is actually better not to say anything to them at all or maybe to turn my advice into a kind of joke. Now when I realise that all my actions are actually based on my desires, in this case it is a desire to make other people “better”, I feel less inclined to do it (to give them an advice), because it is my desire, not theirs.
The second example came to my mind while I was writing this very post. It's about expectations – a particular expectation can be considered as a desire too. In this case my desire was that when I was writing this post my children would understand that I was busy and would leave me alone for some time. This desire was in fact silly and it made me nervous because my children kept coming to me to tell me something or to ask something from me. Without my desire I wouldn't get nervous because of it.
I came up with this idea (asceticism considered as being free from desires) a week ago and I must say that it is rather helpful. It's enough to keep thinking what desires make you do what you actually do. Just thinking about your desires, without trying to change yourself right away.
By the way, here's a great song that makes me calm and peaceful:
It's been almost a year since my Father died and I would like to pay Him a tribute.
There are no perfect people and my Father was not perfect either, but He set a very good example to me in most cases. Interestingly He sometimes tried to convince me that I should behave “this and that”, even though He himself behaved differently. But He did it in good faith – He tried to make me more “successful” than Him. And He failed – I am as “hopeless” as He was, but I think He was quite successful in His own way. There were many important rules that He (together with my Mother) taught me, just by setting an example.
He was honest. He never tried to gain anything at someone else's expense.
He was lawful. He believed that official rules should be respected.
He was truthful. He was not afraid to face the consequences of His own actions and opinions.
He was sincere. He always tried to make everything clear, so there would be no misunderstandings.
He was assertive. He defended his own rights and He didn't take blame for other people's faults.
He was proud. He was not impressed by strangers, even if they held an important position.
He was peaceful and non-aggressive. He didn't like violence or imperialism of any kind.
He was strong-minded. He didn't change his opinions easily and He believed in His own conclusions.
He valued balanced opinions. He often explained to me what understatements or simplifications were made in a statement we had just heard on TV.
He was objective. He was not afraid to admit that our team won a game just because the referee made more mistakes in our favour.
He was compassionate. He fully realised and felt the tragedy of other people and He never laughed at other people's accidents or other misfortunes.
He was careful about other people feelings. He taught me that we shouldn't brag about our achievements or emphasize our material possessions.
He was financially responsible. He didn't fall into any debts just because some other people had more money than Him.
He was against vegetarianism. He was convinced that it is simply not healthy and that humans are more much more carnivores than herbivores.
He was not a mindless devout in any sense. He had his own opinions and beliefs, but He was not displeased by different opinions or different beliefs of other people, as long as they were not harmful or evidently untrue.
He was against taming of wild animals. One day when I was very young He drove me and my Mother to a circus, but He didn't go in with us to see the show and He simply waited for us in the car.
He was a sportsman when He was young. He encouraged me to try many different sport activities and He controlled how my body was developing, mostly by checking if I didn't have scoliosis or hunchback.
He was forgiving. He was surprisingly calm when I did something stupid as a child and He cared only if I was hurt or not.
He didn't use physical punishment. He tried to persuade me with words and bonuses or, as a last resort, with non-physical punishments.
He was not a despot. He didn't plan my life for me.
He was foresightedly wise. He discouraged me from engaging too much in one set of activities or deciding too early on my future goals.
He was imaginatively careful. He taught me to foresee what dangerous things can happen even in seemingly safe conditions.
He was critical of extreme sports. He thought that it is really stupid to voluntarily risk your health or even your life just for some excitement.
He was interested in science. He encouraged me to read books and magazines about how our world is functioning.
He was always reconciled to his life. He never anguished over his misfortunes or despaired over his life, even after He was diagnosed with blood cancer.
I feel very lucky that I had such a great Father. (Thursday, 22 October 2015)
First of all I have to point out that I am a religious person, but I am definitely not a fanatic. Moreover I have a very good high-school-time friend who is a die-hard atheist and we have had some very interesting discussions about religions in general. Fortunately he is not a fanatic either and we respect each other in every way. One day he told me something that surprised me very much – it was something like this: “Jesus was a normal person, not a god, but he did have some very wise things to say”. Hearing something like this from an atheist is all I can dream of.
Overall I know the main objections against my religion (or religions in general) and I can see some problems myself, but it doesn’t make my faith weaker. On the contrary – it’s always uplifting when some minor issues don’t divert your attention from the main topic. In case of religion the “main topic” is all about becoming a better person and finding inner peace. At least to me, but I realise that some religious people base their faith on some kind of fear of „eternal condemnation”. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me because fear (any kind of fear) will never lead to inner peace, which makes it much harder to become „worthy of Heavens”.
The first step was to pick the “version” of the Holy Bible. This is something very important because the vast majority of people who “read the Holy Bible” in fact read a translation of the Holy Bible, not the “original” Holy Bible. The sheer fact that it is a translation should make people very careful about understanding it literally – some phrases are very hard to translate from one language to another. There are some hilarious examples of likely mistranslations, for example Moses with horns: https://artandliturgy.com/2016/01/14/why-is-moses-depicted-with-horns/
I searched the net for discussions about the Holy Bible and I was surprised by the amount of dubious (or utterly pointless) divagations by people taking literally every single word of a particular translation without even wondering if the translation is actually correct. Very good examples are the different translations of one of the Ten Commandments (for the Catholics it’s the 5th Commandment): “You shall not kill” vs. “You shall not murder”. It appears that neither translation is perfectly correct. The translation “You shall not kill” (the one that causes many strange discussions) is claimed by some translators to be definitely too broad and the translation “You shall not murder” is claimed by some translators to be somewhat too narrow. My common sense doesn't like the translation “You shall not kill” because it leads to some contradictions within the Old Testament itself. Also this translation is dubious during wars, when you have to defend yourself from being slaughtered by enemies invading your country. Killing other people in a true self-defence is acceptable to me. Very sad, but acceptable.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of translation problems that may change the way we look at the Holy Bible, so jumping to conclusions is definitely not recommended. I must also point out that at some moments I did wonder whether some parts of the “original” Holy Bible (both the Old Testament and the New Testament) had maybe been “tweaked” for the convenience of the ones who had supervised the writing or re-writing process. It’s definitely not impossible, but as I wrote earlier: some minor issues should not divert our attention from the main topic.
I was very lucky, because there had been a relatively recent (2008) “approved” (by the Catholic Church) translation of the Holy Bible from the original languages directly to my native language that seems to be very precise and that, at the same time, reads very naturally because it uses (whenever possible) modern-day vocabulary:
At first I wanted to read the whole Holy Bible with all the theological comments given right below the text, but I failed. God forgive, but some of the comments were kind of annoying and the sheer volume of all the comments was overwhelming on its own. I can understand the fear of misinterpretation, but the reality is that somebody who is open for misinterpretation (or for a blind criticism of the text) would ignore the comments anyway. I decided to read the text without the theological comments (to speed up the process), but under the assumption that I would not jump to any conclusions. The text in vast majority of places “speaks all by itself” when you read it without prejudice. I must also point out that I do read short comments that are at the side of the text, just out of curiosity. They explain some old words and/or some old customs that are alien to modern-day people or provide some other interesting trivia.
I wanted to read the whole Holy Bible chronologically, but I failed again. The Book of Genesis was basically a “page-turner”, but after that the Old Testament got much more difficult to read. Some parts (I repeat: SOME parts, not all of them) were kind of controversial and I was, at first, overpowered by them. I don't want to get into details, but the most striking examples were the issues of slavery and divorces. Another problem was the sheer volume of the Old Testament. It is huge. Physically huge. In the above edition the Old Testament is 2100 pages long! In comparison the New Testament is “only” 600 pages long in the same edition. When I realized that it would take me months (or even years) to finish the Old Testament I got discouraged, to say the least. For these reasons I started to read the Old Testament alternately with the New Testament.
When I switched to the New Testament I instantly felt much more “at home”. It was much more to the point about moral values and about finding inner peace – the most important things about the Holy Bible (at least to me). Overall I would say that in the New Testament “the pace” is better and “the plot” is a little more consistent than in the Old Testament. Obviously there are many good things to be found in the Old Testament too, but there are also some things that seems to be more or less irrelevant for modern-day people, for example the issues of animal sacrifices.
I even found a great way to read some parts of the New Testament outside my home. There is a pocket edition of the four Evangels (Gospels) of the New Testament (which are, by the way, the most important parts of the New Testament) based on the above edition of the Holy Bible. The translation is identical and there are also all the theological comments from the full edition. Unfortunately there are no “side comments” (the ones that I actually read), so whenever I read the pocket edition I later come back to the full edition and read all the side comments up to the point where I have finished reading the main text in the pocket edition.
In the pocket edition of the four Evangels (Gospels) of the New Testament the font is smaller and more dense, but still easy to read. The most important thing is the fact that it is truly a pocket edition (it fits into the inside breast pocket of a suit jacket). The difference in size between the full edition of the Holy Bible and the pocket edition of the four Evangels (Gospels) of the New Testament is staggering:
I have to point out that I AM going to read the Old Testament till the very end. For two reasons. The first reason is the fact that the Old Testament is officially a part of the Holy Bible and many parts of the Old Testament are considered by the Catholic Church as perfectly valid. The second reason is that I want to know the part of the Holy Bible on which Jesus was raised.
At the end I have to write about something that may seem strange. When I started to read the Holy Bible my “demons” (especially my addiction to computer games) got much stronger. Obviously the Holy Bible doesn't “encourage” such things, so it seems to me that something exactly opposite was taking place – as if something was trying to divert my attention away from the Holy Bible. I'm sure my atheistic friend would find an explanation for this, but to me it was quite unsettling.
Reading the New Testament has been part of a bigger project – reading the whole Holy Bible, as I described in this post: My shot at reading The Holy Bible
I was reading the New Testament alternately with the Old Testament, but the New Testament is much shorted and this is why I finished reading it first.
As a Roman/Latin Catholic I have to say that I'm glad that I am a Christian, because I've known most of the teachings of Jesus from my Church, BUT I still think that Christianity isn't the only way to become “worthy of Heavens”. How can a Catholic say such an “outrageous” thing? Simple – I have to objectively admit that if I were born in a Jewish family I would be a Jew; if I were born in a Muslim family I would be a Muslim; if I were born in a Hindu family I would be a Hindu and if I were born in the middle of the jungle I would be of yet another faith.
This is why I don't quite understand the concept (that is present in all the main religions) that only people from a particular religion are beloved by God. There is only one God, by definition. For every person and for every religion. I believe in God who loves all good people, not only good people from a particular religion. I think that ANY detailed concept of God is wrong by definition, because no material person can actually understand how the spiritual world really “works”. However, it doesn't change the fact that my faith in God is very strong.
Well, I had a faith crisis during my college times, but God kept helping me and kept rewarding me for being a good person. Yep, it is really true that God “persists in saying yes” for a long time. I came back to Church for good after I met my wife – she was like a godsend to me (before I met her I started to have doubts if I would ever find a “normal” wife). I have to also point out that when my faith grew really strong my “eyes opened” and many things that were not understandable to me, even from the scientific/logical point of view, suddenly became clear, believe it or not. Only then did I start to ponder what the words “charism” and “charismatic” really mean from the spiritual point of view (not only in Christianity, but also in other religions).
Now I feel an unstoppable urge to write a review of the New Testament not only for non-Christian religious people, but also for atheists. Yes, even atheists can find interesting and valuable things in the New Testament, but only in some parts. And this is why I will rate not the New Testament as a whole, but only its parts.
Obviously I have to start with the “status” of Jesus, which is almost unbearable for atheists and some non-Christian religious people – I know that some of them won't even touch the New Testament just because of it. So, what could I do to change their minds? The only thing I can think of is paraphrasing Glen Cook. Considering the beauty and the wisdom of His teachings one could say that if Jesus was not Son of God incarnate then He was as close as made no difference.
Atheists can think about Jesus as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, if not the greatest. Nobody else has inspired as many people as Jesus. And nobody else has inspired people for as long a time as Jesus has. His teachings are a perfect complement to the Ten Commandments (from the Old Testament) and together they are the moral base for most of the human civilization, like it or not. From the social point of view the teaching of Jesus can be helpful to anybody, especially to the poor people (“those who are last will be first, and those who are first will be last”). They also stress that we should not judge people by their religion, but only by their deeds (the parable of the good Samaritan). Even from the political point of view His teachings are great, because they don't question non-religious authority by default (“render to Caesar, the things that are of Caesar; and to God, the things that are of God”). Unbeatable, simply unbeatable.
The Evangel/Gospel of Mark
The Evangel/Gospel of Matthew
The Evangel/Gospel of Luke
Atheist rating: 7/10
Non-Christian religious rating: 9/10
These three Gospels are the best source of the teachings of Jesus. They are called “Synoptic Gospels”, because they are very similar to each other and in some parts can be compared sentence by sentence. The shortest one is the Gospel of Mark and it is mostly incorporated into the other two Gospels. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are believed to be also based (in some parts) on the same additional text/source (called the source Q):
The source Q is called the “Double Tradition” on this picture:
The rating for atheists is obviously lower than the other rating because atheists will be annoyed by all the miracles performed by Jesus by default. It's a little similar to what happens nowadays – when something miraculous happens atheists always say that it was all just a coincidence, while the religious people are more open to a different interpretation.
Please notice that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain the The Lord's Prayer, also called Our Father – the most important prayer taught by Jesus (only in these two Gospels this prayer is recorded). Please notice that this prayer is directed to Father God, so it does NOT conflict with other main monotheistic religions (Judaism and Islam refer to the same “Father God”, but they use different names):
Our Father, Who is in heaven,
May Your name be kept holy.
May Your kingdom come.
May Your will be done,
as in heaven, so also on earth.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our offenses,
as we also forgive our offenders.
And lead us not into temptation.
But keep us from evil. Amen.
I have to point out that even the polytheistic religions can see the whole spiritual world as one complex entity. Actually this concept is also present in the Holy Bible and the Quran:
1) God, Spirit of God and Angels in the Old Testament,
2) Father God, Son of God (Jesus), Holy Spirit and Angels in the New Testament,
3) God, Spirit of Holiness and Angels in the Quran.
It’s actually all semantics when we talk about monotheistic and polytheistic religions. Either way, the Lord's Prayer is a rather universal prayer.
The Evangel/Gospel of John
Atheist rating: 5/10
Non-Christian religious rating: 7/10
The Gospel of John is significantly different from the Synoptic Gospels, considering both the style and the content. Well, the style is considered to be actually better, but the content is a mixed bag – there are many wise and inspiring things similar to the Synoptic Gospels, but some parts of the content are somewhat questionable.
In particular there are some inconsistencies within the Gospel itself and there is also significant amount of “new” content that is missing from the Synoptic Gospels. For example Jesus talks much more about himself, which feels kind of strange – the teachings of Jesus were surely the most important thing also for the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, so why did they omit so many things said by Jesus?
Another problem with the Gospel of John is the much bigger number of times the word “Jews” is used. In each of the Synoptic Gospels the word “Jews” is used only five or six times (16 times in total), but in the Gospel of John this word is used 67 times. It literally offends the eye. Moreover it's illogical – Jesus was born in a Jewish family and all those people who were listening to His teachings were also Jews, so using this general word doesn't fit the context at all. If the author had in mind only some particular groups of the Jewish community than he should have been more precise, like the authors of the Synoptic Gospels were in the vast majority of cases.
The rest of the New Testament
Atheist rating: 3/10
Non-Christian religious rating: 5/10
There are practically no new teachings of Jesus in the rest of the New Testament, only what His disciples and followers were reminding each other from His teachings recorded in the Gospels. It's more like a history of theology and development of the Christian Church. Quite interesting for Christians, but still not as interesting as the Gospels. Anyway, I am very glad that the Christian Church was created, because the teachings of Jesus were not lost/forgotten AND because thanks to this Church the Ten Commandments (from the Old Testament) were spread around the world.
SUMMING UP:
If you are an atheist or a non-Christian religious person and you want to read a little about Christianity then you should head straight for the source and read the Synoptic Gospels, ignoring the “status” of Jesus and concentrating on His moral and social teachings. They are unbeatable, trust me.
This is my last post on such topics. This time I found something on the net that I have to share. No matter if you believe that demons are real or not this testimony is worth reading – she was very lucky:
This is real stuff. We’re all human at the end of the day. That’s why I look at every person I encounter the same way. I don’t care who you are. You can be the smallest person off the street or you could be the biggest person in the world, I’m going to treat everybody the same, with respect.
My mom always told me: Never make fun of anybody because you never know what that person is going through. Ever since I was a kid, I never did. I never did. I don’t care what shape, form, ethnicity, nothing. I treat everybody the same. You never know.
I had friends that I thought was perfectly fine, next thing you know they’re a drug addict and can’t remember yesterday . . . I never had a drink in my life because I grew up seeing so many people drinking their life away to suppress the (troubles) they were going through (…).
I feel more and more disconnected from this world. It’s not that I am suicidal or depressed – on the contrary, I am as peacefully happy as ever. But I feel more like a spectator rather than a true participant. I have to point out that I understand perfectly well that some people go through difficult phases of their lives and very often struggle mentally, but at the same time they do things that make their lives even more difficult, causing new problems that make them struggle even more. A vicious cycle.
I will not explain why I think this way because many topics have been covered in detail by other people and it is pointless to repeat all the arguments again. Please notice that by “people” I mean “many people”, not “all the people”, obviously.
1. People try to gather too much info on too many topics, overtiring their mind.
2. People fool themselves that it is not their fault that they are fat/overweight.
3. People compete too much in too many ways.
4. People eat too much.
5. People are afraid to admit that they don't know something.
6. People eat too much “highly-processed” foods that are fresh (eatable) for a very long time.
7. People are not able to enjoy a “boring life”.
8. People avoid eating normal bread – the best source of energy for a human being (it is digested not too quickly and not too slow).
9. People want to possess too many things.
10. People eat too infrequently.
11. People buy some products just because they are endorsed by “celebrities”.
12. People eat too much sweets and/or drink too much “sweet waters” (including “healthy” fruit juices).
13. People waste too much of their time by traveling too often and/or over too long distances.
14. People don't realize that sweetened “sugar-free” products confuse the brain (a sweet product is normally understood by the brain as containing some kind of sugar), which in the long run may result in metabolic problems.
15. People talk or think too much about lives of other people.
16. People drink too little water during eating.
Well, I have to comment on this because such info is very hard to come by. Water fills out stomach as good as any food, lowering the feeling of hunger (with the same amount of foods eaten) AND, more importantly, it lowers the feeling of tiredness after eating – to “use” the eaten foods your body has to digest them and absorb them into your blood, but the whole process needs water. If there is not enough water drunk during eating the needed water is taken away from the rest (the main part) of the body, which makes the rest (the main part) of the body temporarily dehydrated, which makes you temporarily sleepy.
17. People often lie/cheat/mislead/trick/harm/abuse/exploit other people.
18. People drink too little water overall, which often makes them think that they are hungry again instead of only thirsty.
19. People want to become happy through buying things, having friends, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, using drugs or having sex, without realizing that the happiness HAS to start with them, not other people or things.
20. People eat too many fried foods, especially too much fried meat.
21. People avoid being objective and/or try to see everything as “black or white”, ignoring all shades of grey.
22. People eat/drink some foods/drinks just for their taste, ignoring the truly important properties of the foods/drinks.
23. People want quick answers/solutions.
24. People mindlessly avoid non-fried fats, like mayonnaise.
25. People don’t avoid watching (or just listening to) TV commercials or other advertisements (most of which are misleading/manipulative, to say the least).
26. People either eat too much meat or avoid it totally.
27. People buy expensive things that are totally unnecessary for them.
28. People drink energy drinks or coffee, which makes them become overtired – instead of resting they go on doing too many things.
29. People lament about other people being unfair instead of concentrating on being fair themselves.
30. People don't realize that eating foods or drinking “healthy” juices with lots of fructose (sugar from fruits) is actually even worse (even more unhealthy) than eating foods or drinking drinks with the same amount of white (table) sugar (fructose in big amounts is apparently co-responsible for many illnesses, most importantly diabetes and gout).
31. People watch misfortunes of other people, including some gruesome accidents, living through much unnecessary negative emotions (there is enough negative emotions in our own lives already).
32. People eat too little fresh vegetables that taste good on their own (without any sauces or spices), like tomato, bell pepper, cucumber, radish, carrot, cabbage, kohlrabi or cauliflower (most of them can be quickly blanched to make them a little more “safe”/healthier without losing any positive properties).
33. People want to get rich very quickly and they do all kinds of stupid/unacceptable/illegal/pathetic/dangerous things.
34. People eat too much foods with vinegar instead of foods that are fermented, for example it is healthier to eat fermented (non-vinegar) pickled cucumbers than cucumbers pickled in vinegar (another great/very healthy fermented food is sauerkraut).
35. People care about meaningless rules, like very precise (to the point of ridiculousness) behavioural etiquettes.
36. People don’t do regular physical exercises, even the most basic ones.
37. Young people want to become adults far too quickly, often making their lives more difficult than they should be.
38. People get aggressive for ideological reasons (atheists as well as religious people), ignoring the fact that we will never be able to fully understand the world we live in nor the “outside” world, the same way a “2-dimension person” will never be able to understand his (or her) own limitations nor to detect the third dimension, not to mention to understand it (this is actually the main difference between atheists and religious people – the believe in “something” outside our own world; I am a religious person myself, but it bothers me when some religious people fool themselves that they can learn all about the “outside” world just by reading their holy texts; on the other hand it pisses me off when some atheists behave like total fanatics believing that only they have the right to be right; well, some pseudo-religious people are fanatics too, but a truly religious person gives a positive example, without letting anybody enforce a change of his or her beliefs at the same time).
39. People brag about themselves (or the things they own) in a way that shows they don't realise the fact that it is impossible for everyone to be equally successful and/or lucky, no matter how much work and effort the other people would put it in.
40. People hurry too much, often while driving their cars.
41. People forget all about logic/common sense when their animal instinct (sexual drive) kicks in.
42. People like to watch modern-day gladiators (people in the spot-light) fail/get in trouble.
43. People want to be rich/famous/powerful/influential without realising in advance all the dangers it is associated with.
44. People think that they can always identify when they are being manipulated by the mass media, ignoring the fact that the best manipulations have several layers and are not truly recognizable without access to classified data (the non-manipulated classified data).
45. People complain about their lives, when the truth is that their lives could always be much harder than they currently are.
46. People don't really appreciate that they are healthy until their health deteriorates significantly.
47. People constantly use smart-phones or tablets even outside their homes, increasing even more the amount of data their brains try to absorb.
48. People either have very little imagination or assume that all the possible negative scenarios will never possibly happen to them.
49. People often live on credit, having many unnecessary debts.
50. People in many cases stretch the word “necessary” waaay too much.
51. People rest/sleep too little because they always find some unnecessary but very interesting things to do/watch/read about.
The last issue is actually still a big problem of mine. The rest is not (a big problem of mine).
“The act of creation saves us from despair” is a phrase that is similar to what is running in my head: “work ennobles you and make you happy”. It all comes down to the fact that no matter how bad you feel any useful thing you do makes you feel a little better. The problem is that really depressed people don’t want to do anything, having trouble supplying their most basic needs, which makes them even more unhappy. A vicious cycle.
By work I mean any work – also a job. Any job is useful on its own, because it gives you a way to earn money to pay bills for services and goods necessary for you and/or your family. But there are many other things that are useful for you and/or your family that are free, but require your own work. Pretty obvious? Well, it turns out it is not.
Why so many people work very hard, but are not happy? Because they don’t “avoid the casual litter” – they do/buy things that are not really necessary, hence wasting their time/money, which results in them having too little time/money for things that are really necessary, which makes them feel unhappy anyway. Whenever there is a thing that you have to do (sooner or later) it feels more or less like a dark cloud hanging above you and in such case it is impossible to be truly happy. The really necessary things are not so numerous after all and there should be enough time to “look up to the skies” and/or “celebrate the boredom”.
The phrase “any useful thing” reminds me of a phrase “any simple act of kindness” that I have heard here (well worth watching):
There is a topic that I wanted to describe in another post, but the more I think about it the more I believe that it is connected with work and happiness – the lack of sleep. Obviously when we are sleepy then we can’t concentrate as much as when we are well rested and our work suffers and so does our overall happiness. But why do people sleep less and less?
One reason is obvious – partying. Some people, especially some young adults, want to have lots of fun and they try to “live their lives to the fullest”. Let me just say that I am sure that partying is NOT a way to become truly happy and that narcotics and alcohol are in fact poisons (they can kill you quite easily) that cost ridiculous amounts of money. Paying big money for poisons that harm your body? Isn’t that stupid? The same goes for cigarettes. Imagine that you are in a building that is on fire – you would surely cover your mouth and/or stay very low to avoid inhaling smoke, right? But cigarette smokers inhale smoke voluntarily! Ridiculous.
But what about people who don’t go partying but sleep too little anyway? It seems that even children sleep less and less nowadays, which is VERY bad. The simple answer, or more precisely the too simple an answer, would be: “because on the Internet there are many interesting things to do/see/read about”. Sure all the people are curious about the world by nature, yet there are some things about our own body that nobody really understands in full.
One of the most interesting parts of our body is the pineal gland that is hidden in the middle of our brain. It regulates our circadian (24-hour) rhythm by releasing melatonin – a hormone that modulates our sleep. I’ve read that “the proper functioning of the pineal gland keeps people focused, happy, awake in the day and asleep at night, and prevents neuro-degeneration as people age.” The problem is that modern technologies (screens that release light on their own – screens that can be seen in the dark) make the pineal gland release less melatonin than it should. It explains why so many people, including children, have trouble falling asleep at a proper hour. It seems that the worst effects are caused by computers and smart-phones that are very closed to the eyes and lesser effects are caused by relatively small TV screens that are significantly farther away from the eyes.
But there is also an additional catch. Concentration. What we see on computers and smart-phones is usually much different from what we see on the TV. Reading a text or watching small details from a close distance requires much more concentration than watching a normal movie from afar. Humans can stay concentrated this way (on small details) very long, but at the cost of their sleep.
What about colours? Have you noticed that most Internet pages and most programs use a white background and dark letters? You could say: “So what? It's like a page in a printed book”. Well it is NOT like that at all. A white page in a printed book can't be seen in the darkness – it doesn't glow on its own. You have to lit it with a lamp and then SOME of the light rays reflect from the page and only then your eyes can see it. On the other hand a white computer/smart-phone screen throws much more light DIRECTLY at your eyes AND this light is also a different kind of light than the light coming from a normal lamp. So watching a screen is definitely NOT the same as looking at a page in a printed book.
Now compare how many times you have fallen asleep while: sitting in front of a computer, using a smartphone, watching TV or reading a normal (printed) book. I bet there are big differences in these numbers.
From my own experience I can say that sitting at the computer very long into the night feels like being under a kind of hypnosis – doing or watching things that are not good for me, even though I know I should go to sleep instead. Good and long sleep is much more important than most people think. Unfortunately modern technologies seem to interfere with the amount of our sleep and make us less healthy and less happy in the long run.
PS. There is a rule that I strictly adhere to – when it is dark outside and I watch the TV or use a computer or even read a normal (printed) book I always have the main lamp (the main source of light) lit above me (under the ceiling). The thing is that your eyes should not look at a brightly lit object, even at a page in a printed book, when everything around it is much darker – your eyes get much more “tired” this way, which over time can ruin your eyesight.
“Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.” What is the key word? Generations. Without new generations there would be no evolution of a particular species (for example of the humankind) because the species would simply die out.
Any human being who does not have children on purpose or who purposefully kills (also aborts) his (or her) own children is one of the strangest dead ends in evolution. That person's genes will simply vanish from the whole gene pool because of his (or her) own conscious decision. It's like genes' suicide.
Normal people (normal from the point of view of evolution) care about their own children as well as they can, because it maximises the chances that their genes will be passed from their children to the following generation. They do it subconsciously – it simply feels natural. The same way normal people don't harm their own children because that would be unnatural. Rightfully so. Any harm to a child means that there is a bigger risk that the harmed child in the future will NOT want to reproduce or will decide to kill (also abort) his (or her) own children or will develop a sexual behaviour that will make having children impossible. Or a combination of these things.
I think that every society should protect their young generation from any danger that may lead to the strangest dead ends in evolution. To be precise: by danger I don't mean religions that defend the normal model of a family – normal from the point of view of evolution!
Unfortunately in our crazy world it becomes more and more difficult to protect young generation from misguided opinions about what is normal and what is not. The real future of the humankind (people who have children and care about them as well as they can) have to constantly defend their right to raise their own children the way they think is adequate.
(Originally posted on Saturday, 17 April 2021)
I play Grand Prix 4 (2002) to have fun, so I want to be able to overtake even the best drivers, but I still don't want to dominate the championship – this is why I play on a low difficulty setting, but start from the last position and drive races at minimum length (10%). The AI drivers behave VERY realistic, but at the very start of a race it's very easy to overtake lots of them. If there is a contact with another car in front of me I slow down not to gain any unfair advantage because of the contact. I try to drive naturally (not like a madman), but if I am involved in a big “incident” (with or without my fault) I restart the race from the very first lap. Please notice that I play this awesome game with a keyboard!
I use 1 of my 4 universal setups: “slow”, “medium”, “fast” and “max”. The have different settings for wing adjustments and gear ratios, so they have different maximum speeds, but they all have the same “advanced” settings (all the other settings are default):
springs: front 1500 back 1200
ride height: front 33.0 back 53.0
packers: front 25 back 35
My CURRENT wings adjustments:
slow: front 18 rear 16
medium: front 14 rear 12
fast: front 10 rear 8
max: front 3 rear 1
In the gameplay movies below I used slightly different wings adjustments, but my car was quite unstable in SOME of the corners:
slow: front 20 rear 16
medium: front 16 rear 12
fast: front 12 rear 8
max: front 5 rear 1
I experimented a little and I must say that my car was definitely BETTER with front 18 and rear 16 than with front 20 and rear 16, even though theoretically there was less down-force at the front! For example on the Hungaroring circuit I felt MUCH better with front 18 and rear 16 than with front 20 and rear 16!
I didn't finish the race because I hit a car in front of me, ending his race, so I ended my race too. I hate this circuit because there are hardly any places good for overtaking.
Race 8 – Canada – Montreal (setup: fast)
I finished at the 3rd place.
Race 9 – Europe – Nurburgring (setup: medium)
I finished at the 2nd place.
Race 10 – France – Magny-Cours (setup: slow)
I finished at the 9th place. I hate this circuit because there are hardly any places good for overtaking. Even the AI opponents don't make any defending manoeuvres because in most cases there is just ONE driving line!
Race 11 – Great Britain – Silverstone (setup: medium)
I finished at the 3rd place.
Race 12 – Germany – Hockenheim (setup: max)
I finished at the 1st place.
Race 13 – Hungary – Hungaroring (setup: slow)
I finished at the 7th place. I hate this circuit because there are hardly any places good for overtaking. Even the AI opponents don't make any defending manoeuvres because in most cases there is just ONE driving line!
Race 16 – United States – Indianapolis (setup: fast)
I finished at the 1st place.
Race 17 – Japan – Suzuka (setup: medium)
I finished at the 7th place. This was the only race where I used the better wings settings (medium: front 14 rear 12). It was definitely better than my previous setup on this circuit (slow: front 20 rear 16) that I used in desperation – I was not able to make good enough times with my old medium setup (front 16 rear 12) because my car was unstable in some of the crucial corners.
I finished the championship at the 2nd place!
And my team was 3rd in the constructor championship!
The ONLY difference between an unborn baby and a newborn baby is the way it gets food and oxygen. Please, always remember that in both cases the baby and the mother are two different living organisms with two different sets of genes. A birth doesn't change ANYTHING in this regard. Please, remember also that a newborn baby will die without any help, just like an unborn baby taken out of its mother's womb.
How would you call a situation where someone purposefully ends the life of a living human organism that is totally innocent? I would call it a murder. However, some of such cases can't be called a murder because they are legal. Yes, I am talking about abortion. If it's not a murder (because it's legal) then how the hell should I call it? It's not a freaking “procedure”, because there are two different living organisms, not one patient. There is no way I can righteously describe legal abortion.
No wonder that many doctors strongly refuse to carry out abortions even when it is harmful to their careers. Kudos to them! In most cases it has nothing to do with faith or religion, but simply with respecting the survival instinct of any living organism. Many doctors don't like to “interfere” against such a basic thing.
We (me and my wife) have two children: a daughter and a son. In both cases we didn't want any prenatal diagnostic tests to be run on our children. For two different reasons. First reason was the fact that the more advanced prenatal diagnostic tests are in fact invasive and there is a risk that the child may be harmed by these tests alone. We didn't want to take ANY risk. The second reason was that even if the results were very bad we would not be able to have our child killed, even legally.
Interestingly our son did have a congenital malformation, but it did not make us regret our decision. On the contrary – it only made us focus on truly important things and to disconnected somewhat from this stupid and empty materialistic world. Sure we need money to buy necessary things, but the word “necessary” has got a whole different meaning.
We learned that there is something wrong with our son in the middle of the pregnancy. My wife's gynaecologist couldn't get a steady heartbeat of our son, but she didn't tell us about it and instead she sent us for a consultation to another gynaecologist. I had a very important day at my work, so my wife went there alone. We thought it was just a normal consultation, but when I got back from work my wife was all in tears. Basically the other doctor told her that the heartbeat of our son was clearly irregular, that he had congenital malformation (cleft mouth) and that there may be other defects. He even said that our son may not live long enough to be born.
That was truly devastating, but we stayed true to our decision and were ready to care about our son as well as we could, if he would survive. We are both religious, so obviously we prayed. When my wife's female colleagues at her work learned about our situation they started praying too, even if they were not going to church regularly. And it worked, I believe.
After one horrifyingly long week we drove to another city to get another consultation. The mouth malformation was semi-confirmed (the doctor couldn't get a totally clear view because our son put his both fists in front of his mouth, as if he knew we were watching), but his heartbeat was totally steady. The doctor took many measurements of our son's body and analysed them toward Down syndrome and things like that. He said that everything seemed to be perfectly normal, except for the mouth.
Until our son's birth we hadn't known how much his mouth would be cleaved AND if there would be also cleft palate. Thankfully the palate was only marginally cleaved, but his appearance was not good anyway. The bright side was the fact that he was able to eat directly from my wife's breasts, which was a surprise even to the nurses in the hospital.
Because of our son's congenital malformation the doctors in the hospital run a series of additional tests and didn't find anything worrying. In fact our son's general state was so good that he and my wife were released from the hospital right after 48 hours after the birth (the absolutely minimal time that they had to be there).
Our daughter was so worried about her brother's mouth that she was not even jealous about him (she is almost 5 years and 5 months older than he). Everybody was very supportive, but the only thing we could do was just wait for a surgery. We picked a hospital that specialises in such cases and they told us that we have to wait almost 5 months. Another long waiting period, as long as during the pregnancy.
I took the first picture below several days before the surgery. Our son made a strange look because he was concentrated on the camera I was taking the picture with (you can actually see his left arm reaching for the camera).
The surgery took place 5 month after our son's birth (almost to the day). The surgeons did a great job and our son's lips look stunning. I took the second picture over a month after the surgery. I managed to take it while he was smiling after my wife amused him. Click to enlarge!
The scar is not in a straight line on purpose. The doctor explained to us that a straight scar would cause strains that could slightly deform our son's lips over time. Our son is almost 4 years old and his lips look still very good. Here's a great picture of him (taken by my wife) when he was 3 and a half years old. Click to enlarge!
Well, a mouth is not only lips. Our son's gums look not as good, some of his teeth are a little twisted and one teeth is almost completely missing, but orthodontists say they will fix everything when he will be older. Here's a picture of him while he is smiling broadly.
He smiles a LOT. And he has a great sense of humour. We can't imagine a situation where he was not born. Here's a short film showing how fun our life has been with him (he was 2 and a half years old then).
SUMMING UP:
I like the world we live in because nowadays doctors can significantly help people who have health problems, NOT because they know how to carry out an abortion (or a euthanasia). Doctors should be only for helping living organisms, NOT for killing them.
I am a religious person (Latin/Roman Catholic), but it bothers me when some people (from ANY religion) say that “their God” is the “true One”. There is only one God, by definition. For every person and for every religion. I believe in God who loves all good people, not only good people from a particular religion.
Yes, different religions “define” God in different ways, but at the same time they point out that we can't really understand the true nature of God. In my religion it's the true nature of the Trinity that cannot be understood. I have no trouble with that at all, but it also makes me realize that people from other religions, as well as atheists, can have their doubts concerning my religion.
What really matters, however, is the fact that in ANY religion there are people who seem to blessed and who are universally seen as “living saints”. Unfortunately in every religion there are also people who are fanatics. The number of fanatics and their inclination to violence is different in every religion, but it only really means that some religions can be used for political goals more easily than others. Nothing more.
In every religion the most important thing is the belief that the spiritual world really exist and the good part of that world (God) tries to help us. The thing is that we still have our free will and this is why some of our deeds are not really good (to say the least). It also explains why some good people suffer greatly from deeds done by other people (other people have their own free will too).
I believe that there is also the evil part of the spiritual world (demons?) that tries to make us do things that are more or less bad for us or for other people. Or both. It explains why some good people from time to time do bad things or have some very strange thoughts/fantasies that even they can’t explain. Or why some good people turn into bad people over time.
I myself sometimes feel as if I were being torn – on one hand I know/feel what is good for me (long sleep, healthy food and some physical exercises) and what I should do (my everyday duties), but on the other hand I can’t help myself and I do other things (spending too much time playing computer games or browsing the Internet). Moreover I sometimes react so nervously and/or so out of place that I don’t even recognize myself. Freakishly disturbing feeling.
Many people can't understand why the world is not perfect, forgetting that the reason for that is our free will. However there is also a kind of good side to this fact. A person can be judged properly only in an environment that is NOT perfect. If we were living in a perfect world then there would be no way of judging us by our decisions made in difficult circumstances, because there would be no such circumstances at all.
I will never believe that God likes when people hurt (or even kill) other people in God’s name and this is why I believe that a truly religious person (a person who listens to the good side of the spiritual world) will never interpret his (or her) Holy Book in a way that allows such things.
By the way, please notice that punishing people for their crimes is not done in God’s name, but in the name of the law. God wants us to forgive our oppressors, but it does NOT mean that God is against any punishments. Without appropriate punishments the world would be a very bad place indeed. At the same time we should not allow punishments for PURELY religious reasons. The crucial word is “purely”. When arguing about things like abortion a religion is only a side-issue that is used to divert the attention from the most important issue – the well being of the unborn baby. The interest of the parents of the baby is only one side of the story and we shouldn't ignore the other side! Please notice that the baby and the mother are two different organisms with two different sets of genes!
In most cases religions help people handle their own weaknesses as well as difficult situations caused by other people. Unfortunately religions have always been used by politicians who are quite often very far from God. They steer some weak pseudo-religious people into doing evil things apparently in God’s name, but in fact they do it in the name of their own political and/or personal gains. Sometimes they use the mass media to steer the whole societies and/or religions into waging wars against each other. That’s pure evil.
One of the most important people who advocated for the respect and peace between religions was John Paul II and I must admit that the longer I live the more I think he was a truly unique person. Of course he was criticized by some of the Catholics for some of his symbolic gestures, but a person who is truly religious should understand his intentions easily.
Now let me give you my own explanation of the fact that we can’t even “detect” God. Obviously it's a huge simplification, but I use it just to show you my own feelings about this topic. Imagine a 2-dimensional person “living” on a page of paper. Can he (or she) see the third dimension or detect it in any other way? No – his eyes and his tools are 2-dimensional and it is impossible for him to see nor detect higher dimension, by definition. However, he can see the results of some things done in higher dimension, for example he could see an item drawn on his page of paper by a 3-dimensional pencil. For him it would be a miracle, but for a “3-dimensional god” it would be a piece of cake. Except maybe that the “3-dimensional god” would have to know how to actually draw the item using the 3-dimensional pencil.
