What is Doping?

This is the first post on a series on doping and cycling. I'm hoping to explain doping and cycling in a way that non-cyclists and non-scientists can understand.

So, what is doping? The short common answer is that it is the use of performance-enhancing drugs to make you a better athlete. This definition is quite broad. It could include caffeine and recovery drinks. Under this definition, better equipment could be considered doping if you dop the "drug" part. Obviously using caffeine or using a really nice bike is not doping. So this is a BAD definition of doping. We need something more specific.

Enter the WADA
The organization that organizes the rules for what is considered doping and not doping is the WADA. (World Anti-Doping Agency) They are the governing body for cycling. If a cyclist gets in trouble for doping, it's because of the rules set up by the WADA. In 2003, the WADA published a set of rules and regulations on doping to govern the world of sports, including cycling. They have really long lists for what is completely prohibited, prohibited in competition and prohibited in particular sports.

Doping, according to the WADA, is "the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth." So if you break one of the rules set up by the WADA, then you are doping.

That's Dumb, Why? 
The natural question to ask would be, why have these rules? Who cares if someone uses this method or that drug to help them bike faster? The answer is that it can kill you so this makes it unfair to other opponents. The reason being, if you dope and are able to get an extra edge then in order to keep up with you, your opponents also have to start doping. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't mean that in order to compete then athletes would be putting their lives at stake. We don't want to do that. Making a sport unnecessarily dangerous is wrong. Rules should create limits that keep athletes away from unnecessary risks, doping being one of them.

In sum, doping is simply breaking the rules set up by the WADA.

Young Men are like Cain

In Genesis 4, the story of Cain and Abel is recounted. The two brothers offered up sacrifices to God. God accepted Abel's but rejects Cain's. Cain became angry that God didn't accept his and jealous that Abel's was accepted. God warned Cain, "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (ESV)

Cain was in a tight spot. He failed to please God and was angry that he didn't. Specifically he was angry that his brother did well. As a result, Cain murdered his brother.

Many young men are in Cain's position. We are just starting out in life, taking the first steps outside of college and working on our own. A bunch of us have offered poor offerings to God while in college. We've given him our video games, sports, movies, foolish relationships and worst of all sin as ways of glorifying Him. God has no regard for these things.

Now, we're at point where we can get mad at God for not accepting our works. As a result we can reject the church, shirk our holy responsibilities and walk deeper into sin. The deeper a young man walks in sin, the closer he gets to murdering his fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. In the least, he greatly hurts them.

God warned Cain that sin was crouching at his door. Likewise, sin is crouching at our door. Our lives are unacceptable to God. Sin wants us to take its path.

The question before young men today is whether we will rule over sin or will we be like Cain?

Lance Armstrong and Doping

You may have noticed that Lance Armstrong has entered BACK into triathlon. He recently placed 2nd at 70.3 IRONMAN Panama. He is also going to be racing in some other 70.3 Ironmans through the year. The guy can't stay away from competition.

More importantly you may have noticed at the federal government ended its investigation on Armstrong's cycling team that won seven Tour De Frances in seven years.. The decision came as a surprise to many in the cycling community. It was also conveniently announced the Friday before the Super Bowl. 

Armstrong himself was relived that the investigation is over. The investigation was made up of the Food and Drug Administration, the FBI and the U.S. Postal Service. There was talk that it was possible Armstrong was going to be charged at some point with mail fraud, drug distribution, money laundering and/or witness tampering. 

Note, it is not illegal to dope in the United States. It is illegal to do the things stated above and often cyclists will do the above in order to hide their illegal activities. (It is breaking WADA rules to dope.) 

Now the WADA is asking the federal government to turn over their findings so the U.S. anti-doping agency to continue it's own investigation. 

Many things about cycling are confusing. Doping is one of those confusing parts. It's very sad with what has happened to cycling in the last five years with now two Tour De France winners stripped of the yellow jersey. It's important to see why doping is so rampant in cycling as opposed to say basketball or hockey. 

Over the next week or so, I'll be writing a series of posts that will help explain this sad and painful part of cycling. 

What Do You Do When You Are Sick

This past week I have been deathly ill with a cold. I have been drinking lots of water and tea. Also, I have been reading and watching movies. I finished "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" and "Same Kind of Different Me." Both are worth reading. I also watched many movies and tv shows. Below are some reviews.

Drive
Ryan Gosling plays the part of a stunt performer who transports bad guys for five minutes at a time. A friend of my mine described this movie being just like "Rebel Without a Cause" except more depressing. I agree. It's an interesting movie if you like movies where the main actor never talks, stares a lot and beats people up really bad. Did I mention he's also a great driver?

The Guard 
I picked this movie because it was shot in Ireland, one of my favorite countries. The movie is based in Country Galway, where I spent a couple of days. It was fun seeing shots of places I've been. For those who haven't been to Ireland, you will find this movie worthwhile. Brendan Gleason does a great job acting so smart you can't decide if he's dumb or intelligent. Also, Gleason was a teacher before he became an actor so that's another reason to watch it, though not a good one.

Five Minutes of Heaven
I should have just watched just movies about Ireland during my sickness. This is a fabulous movie. The story is about how a Catholic and Protestant reconcile over a murder during the Troubles. It is a bit slow at parts and confusing if you're not familiar with the conflict in Northern Ireland. James Nesbitt does an excellent job of a playing a man who carries the guilt of his brother's murder and Liam Neeson does an okay job of playing the murderer of Nesbtt's brother. I really liked how the movie ended. That sealed it for me. Also, I thought he was going to kill him.

Sherlock Holmes (BBC TV Show) 
I watched the first two episodes of this TV show while up at Taylor visiting a friend. I watched the last episode while being sick. As a result, I'm dying to watch the second season. It's a great show. My Mom didn't like it because of how the series "modernizes Sherlock, and I agree that he's not as good as he was in the books. Literary accuracy aside, this is a great show.

Break Bad (Season 1) 
I watched the first season of Breaking Bad because my brother suggested it. I found the show to be entertaining though a bit much at points. It's a bit too slow for my liking. Also, Iwas more interested in how they made meth rather then the plot. Not that I'm going into business or anything, but honestly the chemistry was more interesting.

Those are some of the movies and TV shows I watched during my sickness. Now that I'm almost better, I am now returning back to normal and so won't be watching anything any time soon.

Criticisms of "Is Philosophy UnBiblical?"

In this post I will give three criticisms of my argument that philosophy is not unBiblical. 

First, isn't this a debate over terms and nothing more? What if you defined philosophy as "a system of thought or involving such inquiry" (David Hume's definition)? Under this definition there seems to be a contradiction between "philosophy" which is promotes specific systems of thought and/or inquiry into these systems.

It must be clarified that this argument is making two points, first it says you're arguing about simple definitions, so what! Second, you can define philosophy in a way that makes philosophy unBiblical.

My response to the first part is that definitions are important. Words have meaning. If you improperly define those meanings then you're going to run into trouble. For instance, let's talk about the definition of faith. If you improperly define faith then you might accidentally be setting up a definition that goes against scripture. You want to avoid doing that so it is important to define your terms.

My response to the second part is that by agreeing with this objection I don't have to change my argument. Under this definition, Christianity itself is included under philosophy since it promotes a certain system of thought or worldview. So even under this definition we can't get away from doing philosophy.

A second objection is that there are Christians who stayed away from philosophy like...Okay I can't think of anyone right now.

My response is that if there are such major theologians who have been able to pull off a feat, I'd love to talk to them. Yet, even if their are theologians who've completely removed themselves from "philosophy" it doesn't mean you can just stop studying thinkers like Augustine, Edwards or Thomas.

Lastly, how do we know that your ESV Bible note is right?

My response, that's a philosophical question. Specifically, it is an epistemic question.

Bottom line: by involving yourself in the debate as to whether philosophy is a Biblical enterprise, you have automatically involved yourself in the enterprise of philosophy!

Is Philosophy UnBiblical?

For my birthday, my parents got me the new ESV study Bible. It's pretty cool. I think it weighs more then I do, which isn't very hard to do. Anyway, I was reading it, and I came across Colossians 2:8.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

I intentionally came across this verse because someone recently asked me if Colossians 2:8 shows that Christians ought not to study "philosophy." I kind of have to say no since I have a degree in philosophy, and I am a Christian.

There are three arguments for why one ought not to interpret Colossians 2:8 to say that Christians shouldn't study "philosophy."

The First, What is Philosophy?
The moment you begin to think about this important question, what is philosophy, you automatically are taking part in the activity of philosophy. So if you think Christians shouldn't do philosophy, you're  screwed right away because in order to even think about what you're against you have to join what you're against.

To answer the question, in it's broadest definition, philosophy is critically looking at our beliefs and assumptions about the ourselves, God and the world around us. (If we do exist, if there is a God and if there is a world around us.) This definition isn't precise, but I hope that it is broad enough to include what has been known as "Western philosophy." Oh, and it's broad enough to include 2 Corinthians 10:5.

The Second, Christianity and Philosophy are Intertwined 
Second, the heathen activity of philosophy is intertwined with the Christian religion. Augustine used Plato, Thomas used Aristotle, Calvin used the stoics, Edwards used Locke, Piper used the Epicureans and so on and so forth. (Okay so saying Piper used the Epicureans is a bit of a stretch...) Even if you believe that philosophy is dangerous and Christians shouldn't study it, you still have to study it in order to understand your own history and theology.

The Third, Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 10:5
My final argument is based off my first. Given the definition of philosophy I have outlined above, Paul was not warning the Colossians to stay away from critically examining their beliefs. Rather, he was saying stay away from systems of belief that are of "empty deceit" and are according to "human tradition" and not according to Christ. Essentially, don't define your life by systems which are not according to Christ. My ESV study Bible was helpful because it has a note which explains this word "philosophy" that Paul uses. Of course this is not the Bible, but it help us understand the context that Paul is writing in. The note says:

The term "philosophy” was used much more broadly in the ancient world than it is today. Josephus, for instance, could call the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees “philosophies.” Even a magician could be called a philosopher. Paul is not making a blanket condemnation of the traditional Greek philosophical schools (e.g., Platonism, Stoicism, Aristotelianism, etc.). His remarks are focused on the particular factional teaching being disseminated at Colossae.

Hence, under the definition of philosophy I gave above, it doesn't seem that Paul is talking about the same philosophy as defined above.

I thought about adding objections to this post, but that would be a bit long. So for next time, objections to this argument will be discussed.

In conclusion, hopefully you better see that philosophy and Christianity are not contradictory.  Philosophy is the handmaid to theology. One can't properly function without the other.

Update: objections are up.

Chivalry was Never Alive

A blog I keep an eye on and occasionally read is Hermeneutics. A guest blogger, Ruthie Dean, just posted on how women are fueling the "man problem." In a nutshell, the man problem is that there are very few men who are ready and willing to marry women. There are too many boys who are not being responsible. Dean's point was women are encouraging boys in their behavior in hopes of getting married. I thought this was a great post and a great point. I'm glad someone is saying this.

Dean has her own blog, and on her Hermeneutics post, she linked to a post that Michael Dean wrote on regarding chivalry. (I assume last name menas they are married?) His point: chivalry isn't dead. Men need to "man up." Being a man includes reading your Bible, getting a mentor, growing facial hair and pursuing a woman.

People who personally know me, know I'm very interested in this issue of manhood and gender relations. I don't want to come across as judgmental, but this topic needs to be dealt with in a serious and thoughtful manner. If we don't take captive our thoughts on this subject then we are in some very serious danger. Hence, I am critiquing Mr. Dean's post. I don't want to take away from the discussion but the way he frames the discussion, I believe, has some serious errors. These errors will send us down the wrong road. This post is an attempt to try to better frame the discussion regarding manhood and chivalry.

Michael's Definition of a Man is unBiblical
Manhood is not defined by behavior. Another way to say it, behavior is not where we find the definition of manhood. If we just point to behaviors as being the conditions for what makes a man, we're not getting to the heart of the issue. We're looking at shadows, not the thing in itself.

Dean says, do, do, do and do. Anyone can do what he suggests. It doesn't take a man to pursue a woman, grow facial hair, get a mentor or read your Bible. Furthermore, it doesn't take a Christian to do any of these things. Non-Christians can read the Bible just as well as Christians, sometimes better. Lastly,  some men grow beards, get married, hopefully read their Bibles and have a mentor. These are good things. Just don't make it a part of the definition of a man.

Chivalry was Never Alive
I define chivalry has being respectful toward women. If we think chivalry was alive at some time in history then we are not considering how serious the fall of man was. Let's start with the beginning of the world. Was Adam chivalrous when he followed Eve into sin? Was Jacob chivalrous when he stole his brother's birthright? Was Judah chivalrous when he committed adultery with Tamar? Was David chivalrous when he committed adultery with Basheba AND had her husband murdered? And we're only talking about the ancient world here. Let's skip the gospels and New Testament for the sake of time. Here's just a short list since then: Henry the VIII, Charlemagne, Pope Alexander VI, Charles I and Benjamin Franklin (I don't need to go into the detail on his exploits...). These are just a few people in western history who did not act with chivalry.

One could object by pointing to people like Joseph, Jesus, Paul and George Washington. They had chivalry. They were respectful to women. My response is that these men are the exception to the rule. The world is full of bad boys. There are very few good men. Men have always been rare.

The Problem with a System of Chivalry
Sin is deeply entrenched in us. Even paradigm examples of men are problematic. A good example is David in the Old Testament. The problem with thinking that chivalry isn't dead or is dead but was once alive is that it assumes we're are capable of being good people. This is unBiblical. No man is good. All have fallen short of the glory of God.

One may object that chivalry as a system doesn't have to do with the heart, but with how one behaves. In a sense, it has to do with manners. My response is that if that's what chivalry is all about then I don't want it. I don't want to just have good manners, have good behavior. I want something deeper then that. I want to have chivalry as a virtue. But just keep it at that. Don't make it into a system for life!

What is Manhood? 
Manhood is defined by the human Jesus Christ. That means a man is perfectly balanced between being respectful and telling the truth. It means a man are perfectly balanced between being merciful and just. It means a man is perfectly loving.

Ladies, there is only one man. He is Jesus of Nazareth. Flee to him. Do not look to earthly men for safety. Do not entrust yourselves to us. It is in only Christ you can find healing, safety and peace. The rest of us boys will, and have, failed you. It doesn't mean you don't get married, but you can't put your trust in men, you must put your trust in the Lord.

Chivalry as a System
My personal opinion of chivalry as a way of life is that it is philosophically poorly based. It assumes that man is good. It assumes that behavior defines personhood. None of these assumptions I agree with nor do I want to do anything with them. This is different then seeing chivalry as a virtue, as a part of one's character. But it is the opposite way. Instead of behavior defining chivalry. It is the disposition of one's heart that defines it. Dean may have been trying to promote chivalry as a virtue rather then a system. I could easily be wrong in my critique. Regardless, it is important to remember that we can't let good things like the virtue of chivalry to become an all-encompassing system for how we ought to live our lives. The more I think about this, Dean is probably not promoting that. Sorry Dean...

Conclusion
I would love to hear people's thoughts on this issue. It is a hard and important topic that we must work through carefully and thoughtfully. This is just a blog post. You could write a couple books on this topic.