Knowing Ourselves
Ξ December 29th, 2009 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
"What can we gain by going to the Moon if we cannot cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves."
~Wisdom of the desert
Peace
Ξ December 23rd, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
May peace break out all over the world. What better gift could be ours than that! Best to all my friends and readers in the Blogworld!
The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson
Ξ December 22nd, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
* Some of my favorite quotes by Thomas Jefferson.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
The Bible
Ξ December 19th, 2009 | → 3 Comments | ∇ Life |
*I borrowed this from Dr. James McGrath who borrowed it from "Sherry"
"There are those who believe that God literally "dictated" word for word the entire document. This would be fine, but admittedly, if true, God is about a C+ at best as writer and historian."
The Collapse of Evangelical Christianity
Ξ December 15th, 2009 | → 5 Comments | ∇ Life |
*Once again there has been a prediction of the downfall of American Evangelicalism. I wrote on this subject some time ago. Here’s the latest article on the collapse from Internet Monk, Michael Spencer
We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West. (to read the rest of the article, click here)
“The Last TV Evangelist”
Ξ December 14th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
I recently read this article about Phil Cooke’s latest book, "The Last TV Evangelist"
An Insider’s Look At the World of Religious Media…and What’s Coming Next! Religious radio and TV has built massive networks, launched global organizations,and generated billions of dollars in donations. It has allowed Christianity to reach more people in this century alone than the rest of history combined. But that impact has come with a price. Sex and money scandals, political controversies, and the prosperity gospel have taken their toll on the perception of Christians in the culture. Religious Media has Alienated a Generation TV evangelists with fake hair and gold furniture, tasteless programming, and hard core fundraising pitches have reached embarrassing levels, and young people today want nothing to do with it. But a New Revolution is Happening in Religious Media. With more than three decades of experience in both faith-based and secular media, Phil Cooke explores what it will take to reach the next generation, before the entire industry experiences total collapse.
The Rapture- Yes or No
Ξ December 10th, 2009 | → 6 Comments | ∇ Life |
I am just about done with my latest read, "The Rapture Exposed", by Barbara Rossing. I say done because I haven’t actually read every page. I decided to read it because after spending five years on this journey of discovery, I’ve found myself with more than a few doubts about "the rapture" as a viable doctrine for Christians. After reading over half the book, I found myself having a difficult time agreeing with much of Rossing’s theology itself.
First of all, Barbara Rossing teaches New Testament at the Lutheran School of Divinity at Chicago. She holds a doctorate from Harvard Divinity School. Pretty impressive if you are looking for credentials for a scholar.
Ms. Rossing, early in the book, mentions the FEW rather interestingly interpreted scriptures upon which the idea of the rapture is engendered: I Thessalonians 4:13-18, I Corinthians 15:51-57, Matthew 24:39-42 (also Luke 17:34-35), Matthew 24-25 (the Olivet Discourse), John 14: 1-2, and last but certainly not least, Daniel 9:25-27.
Then, without much explanation of these verses, she explains dispensationalism as created by John Nelson Darby in the 1830’s. She does a good job of giving us the history of this rather manicheanistic theology. Rossing ties the growth of dispensationalism to the Schofield Reference Bible, that dubious reference work by an even more dubious author, Cyrus I. Schofield.
John N. Darby, along with Schofield, seem to be the scholastic heroes of modern dispensationalists as Hal Lindsey, Tim Lahaye, John Hagee, and others.
Ms. Rossing then turns her attention for most of the rest of her tome to Tim Lahaye’s "Left Behind" series. She claims that Lahaye sees the rapture in many parts of the book of Revelation, especially chapter 3, and that his reading of that book is the main reason she believes that Lahaye’s series of books are one of the most dangerous "doctrines" to come out of Christianity in a long, long time. In her eyes, "Left Behind" creates a believable scenario that many of its readers see as non-fiction instead of fiction. That, in Rossing’s eyes, is very dangerous. It seems that most Christian folks have an aversion to the Revelation and that most of them desire a simplified explanation of the mystic vision of John (not sure that’s possible!). She says that those followers of the series of books, believing that everything in the books will come to pass, create a very dangerous world situation when they make reality of a fictional account. Rossing believes that men like Lahaye, Hagee desire the things which they interpret from the Bible to eventuate as soon as possible and will do whatever it takes to effect the perceived endgame, that is, the Biblical battle of Armageddon . This belief, in her opinion, could have deadly consequences in the volatile Middle East. Very well could be true!
Even to one who believes little of those interpretations of scripture, it seems that Rossing spends too much time with "Left Behind" and not enough with exposing poor Biblical scholarship of the "Left Behind" series and of dispensationalism itself. She saves the real debunking of the "rapture" for her "Epilogue" She does a fair job in what she attempts there, but, in my opinion, is still saddled by what I perceive as a antiquated view of the Bible as a whole, and a questionable interpretation of the Revelation. She believes in a physical return of Jesus to the earth (where’s he been? I find him in my heart), she stills holds to the anthropomorphic, monarchial view of God to which I do not ascribe. I found myself in disagreement with a lot of Rossing’s theology, but thank her for enlightening me about the inner workings and history of dispensationalism, and the manicheanistic empire of "Left Behind". I did really enjoy her last comment. As a follower of God: "You grapple to make sense of the words, you hold on, you struggle for clarity, you seek to wrest answers for all your questions. What God gives you instead of answers is a blessing, ……….- a living relationship."
I was somewhat disappointed that poor Biblical scholarship was not the main theme when dealing with the Rapture and its parent, dispensationalism.
Honesty & Dishonesty in the Healthcare Debate
Ξ December 8th, 2009 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
Honesty and Dishonesty in the Health Care Debate
The debate on reforming health care in the United States seems to be winding toward a final decision. This debate has revealed new depths of irrationality, dishonesty and anger in political discourse. I recognize that the reform of our health care system is threatening to many, but there is no rational person who believes it can continue as it is without bankrupting business and individuals alike. The fact is that we in the United States have the most expensive health care system in the developed world, and this despite the fact that some forty million of our citizens presently have no coverage. Ours is also not the best health care system in the world as so many defenders of the status quo continue to suggest without the slightest bit of documentation. The United States ranks 23rd among the nations of the world in infant mortality, 21st in life expectancy for men and 20th in life expectancy for women. How could anyone view these facts and still seriously make the claim for the superiority of our system? American health care is quite probably the "best health care system in the world" for something like the top 20% of our population, but beyond that it is less and less competitive with other nations and for the bottom 20% of our population it is an outrageous embarrassment.
The issues in this health care debate are not as clear as we wish, but a major reason for that is that it is in the vested interests of certain people to make sure that these issues stay unclear. Fear, scare tactics and even incredible misstatements of facts thrive in that kind of environment. Great numbers of people in our society have their mouths in the proverbial feeding trough of our current health care system, having dined well there for years. The lawyers are one such group. They resist tort reform because they make enormous money by suing doctors for malpractice and being awarded huge settlements by a jury of a victim’s peers. Drug makers are also reaping huge profits, even though far too often they have to use some of those profits to pay for the dramatically, devastating painful deaths that have accompanied certain drugs. The makers of medical devices are another group frequently shown to be guilty of deliberately hiding defects that have been disastrous. Of course, all of us wind up paying the costs of these legal settlements in the ever-expanding cost of our insurance. Doctors today are not nearly as negative to things like the public option as they once were. In fact, one recent poll suggested that 70% of America’s doctors favored the public option. I talked with a highly regarded doctor recently who favored, and thought we would eventually adopt, the single payer system. He cited the fact that doctors have worked with Medicare for years now and they know that the government interferes in patient health and in medical decisions far less than private insurance companies do. Doctors also know that Medicare, unlike the health care companies, will pay them promptly and fairly for the senior citizen section of their practice. Many doctors also resent the lack of freedom and the massive amount of paperwork that is primarily an insurance company effort to manage costs and thus to maximize profits. Paperwork connected with insurance forms has forced doctors to hire staff just to manage the paper flow, which in turn raises medical fees. For these reasons doctors are not as negative to a national health service as they once were.
If the truth were fully disclosed we would discover that the insurance companies are making huge profits. There is no other reason for them to be spending billions of dollars to lobby against any reform. All of the proposed bills in Congress are designed to cut the cost of medical care, and that means cutting the profits of the insurance companies. Spokespersons for this industry are the people primarily responsible for the loaded rhetoric that has been dumped into the debate. It comes straight out of unscrupulous public relations firms. Whenever one hears in this debate emotionally loaded words like "government takeover," "government death squads" (who, they suggest, will decide which elderly people will live and which will die), and "government bureaucrats" (who will stand "between you and your doctor"), all of us should know that this rhetoric is the result of paid lobbyists seeking to manipulate public opinion. What we have operating in the economy today is an insurance company takeover of American health care and they do not want to be challenged by what they call "a government takeover of American health care." The insurance companies are today the ones who decide what services will be covered. They thus are already making the decisions as to who will live and who will not. Their rhetoric simply projects what they are already doing onto their favorite bogeyman, "the government." At least a government program would be responsible to its constituency, the people of the United States, while the insurance companies must satisfy their constituency of profit-driven management and dividend-seeking stockholders. Few people recognize that 35% of the premiums people pay for health insurance goes to executive compensation, bonuses and dividends. There is enormous profit in health care. One wonders how moral it is for a few to profit from the illnesses of the many.
Another rather ingenious attack on health care reform heard recently in Congress by the perpetual naysayers is that the provision requiring everyone to carry insurance amounts to a "new tax" imposed on young Americans. Behind this charge is the fact that among those who have no health insurance is a significant number of young Americans who refuse to get it for two reasons: one, it is very expensive and two, they feel no need for it, given their youthful and robust health. To me this is one more manifestation of the selfish greed that so deeply affects this nation. I was responsible for an urban hospital in Jersey City for 24 years while I served as the bishop of Newark. It was not only our desire to serve the poor, but also a government mandate, that we had to treat any patient in need who appeared in our emergency room whether they were insured or not. Under this law we in turn billed the government for "uncompensated care." The government obviously passed on these costs to the taxpayers. So the fact is that all of us today are already paying for those who have no insurance, even though those in the young adult category are quite capable of paying for it. If all the young and healthy Americans were forced to come into the health care system at appropriate levels, we would discover that the cost of health care would go down for all. We require those who drive a car to have insurance. Is that a tax? I think not! It is an act of responsible citizenship. This fact also counters the fear, so often expressed in this debate, that this nation cannot cover the uninsured without adding hugely to the national deficit. It is amazing how opponents of health care can argue both sides of an issue whenever it serves their purpose, even if the two sides are radically contradictory. That is when you know that the real agenda is hidden.
The biggest scare tactic of all has been the suggestion that under a new plan the health care of the elderly would be rationed by setting up "death panels" to determine which senior citizens to euthanize. Here again behind this fearful and dishonest rhetoric there are some facts that need to be made clear. An enormous percentage of our health care dollars is expended in the last year of a person’s life. Some of that is normal and to be expected, since death comes to most people after a sickness in old age. There is, however, a large elephant in the room in this debate that is never mentioned, which is the systemic over-treatment of the elderly. As Evan Thomas noted in a recent Newsweek article, researchers at Dartmouth have discovered and documented that the average cost of a Medicare patient in Miami is $16,351 while in Fargo, North Dakota, it is $5,738. This study also revealed that the average Medicare patient undergoing end-of-life treatment in Manhattan spends 21.9 days in the hospital while in Iowa, it is 6.1 days. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any difference in care or longevity related to the difference in cost. The primary difference was in the number of tests and procedures that doctors ordered. Medicine pays by the procedure. According to Mr. Thomas some studies estimate that Americans nearing death are over-treated by roughly 30%. Some of this I am certain is motivated by the fear of malpractice suits, some by the "fee for service" way we practice medicine and some by greed. In places like the Mayo Clinic, where doctors are paid a salary to care for patients, the costs go down and the effectiveness of care goes up.
Another important issue, which has been demonized in this political season, is the effort to encourage end-of-life conversations between doctor and patients. This has never been a prelude to euthanasia as the hysterical Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has irresponsibly suggested. It is designed to give a patient a major role in managing his or her disease. Where this has been done effectively, patient costs have dropped 35% while the quality of life has been improved. People with this counseling tend to die at home in the care and arms of their loved ones, not in an antiseptic environment surrounded by strangers.
I applaud the ingenuity of our health care professionals, which has expanded both the length and the quality of life. I have had two diagnoses in my life that my grandfather would not have survived. There is a fine line, however, between expanding life and postponing death. I do not believe that life and existence are the same. Insurance should not pay for guilt, but for meaningful life. I want to wring every ounce of sweetness possible out of my length of days, but I also do not want to live one moment beyond the time when my life loses meaning and contact with those I love. I do not want anyone’s religious values to be imposed on me. I do not ever want life to be defined as extended time. There is a difference and someday I hope unscrupulous politicians and those with clearly vested interests will understand that as I do.
*The preceding article was written by John S. Spong in October of 2009
This is obviously a contentious issue that is so difficult for one person to get a handle on. I am not saying I fully agree with the above article, but it certainly rings of love, compassion which I feel should be such an important part of any proposition coming out of Washington.
Quoted
Ξ December 7th, 2009 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
"The church is like a swimming pool. Most of the noise is coming from the shallow end."
~Professor Sarah Coakley, Harvard Divinity School
Stumble it!
