I have a friend currently in the hospital for an extended stay. Sitting by his bed overnight I talked with his wife about insurance in America. They've been through this before without insurance, this time with. Her insight -- without insurance he'd have been home days ago. The hospital, in her experience, will do the minimum treatment they can get away with because they expect most people to file bancruptcy and they won't get paid, but treatment still costs them. If you file bancruptcy with insurance they still get most of the money due them from the insurance company.
I guess the quality of treatment is the difference insurance makes in a major illness / accident. Sad, but substantial.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Barry Bonds*
Let's have a bicycle race. Rules are all bikes have to be pedal powered, no cutting corners on the track, no malicious contact. Easy enough. I'll show up in a moped, remember those, pedal powered and, uh, engine assist.
Bonds gots skills. He just knew he wasn't man enough without a little "assist." I say give him the record. When it's all done let's see:
Bonds, 1032*
and at the bottom of the page:
*not man enough without the juice.
Bonds gots skills. He just knew he wasn't man enough without a little "assist." I say give him the record. When it's all done let's see:
Bonds, 1032*
and at the bottom of the page:
*not man enough without the juice.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Health Care / Insurance
So I don't get it. Obviously, the industry has to make money. Premiums, deductibles, etc. have to cover, not just the cost of care, but also the costs of administration and salaries for those pesky insurance salesman. I recently reviewed some old data about health care costs and, assuming that only the rates have changed and not the percentages, have developed some questions that I'd like to find answers to. I may have to print them out the next time I have to sit through an insurance meeting at work.
There is an average dollar figure for actual cost of health care. This is what it would cost if it were just out of pocket. Ignoring the effect of insurance companies contracting lower rates, I'm just looking at what actually gets paid. In other words, I realize that if you walk into a doctor's office you'll pay more than the insurance gets charged, but let's just pretend insurance didn't exist and providers would take the same money.
Approximately 95% of households spend more on insurance every year than the actual health care costs. I personally average hundreds of dollars per year on routine health care, not counting exceptional injury. Insurance premiums alone for an individual are upwards of $4000. That differential is why all the insurance people get paid. Only about 3% of households have health care costs each year that exceed base insurance costs by 10X. Remember that your employer is paying the bulk of the premium, your $60 per month is a pitance.
If you're one of the households exceeding payments by an extreme amount the insurance may be a windfall. An alternative would be getting the premiums your employer pays to someone else. This would leave you at risk, of course, in the event of any major injury or illness. That last statement implies that having insurance alleviates this risk. Does it, though?
What percentage of bankruptcies involve major medical expenses?
Of those, how many had insurance? (Which didn't protect them financially.)
More to the point:
Of households in any given income bracket, say yours, who suffer a major medical problem and have some standard insurance through their employer, what percentage still file for bankruptcy?
Same question for those without insurance.
I found quite a bit of data that looked like any major medical problem was as likely to send you to bankruptcy court whether you were insured or not. New bankruptcy laws now and I have no idea how this will effect things in the future, but financial devistation is devistating whether you can file or not.
Insurance costs thousands of dollars per year. What gets covered and what doesn't on your next potential policy? Even if it gets covered, how? 80/20 split? 20% of $30,000 will still break most households.
I'd rather see a plan where instead of paying my premiums that money would just go into a flex fund. Use it or lose it. Any unused monies to go to a general healthcare fund. It would encourage routine medical because that amount of money is way more than most people would ever spend anyway.
There is an average dollar figure for actual cost of health care. This is what it would cost if it were just out of pocket. Ignoring the effect of insurance companies contracting lower rates, I'm just looking at what actually gets paid. In other words, I realize that if you walk into a doctor's office you'll pay more than the insurance gets charged, but let's just pretend insurance didn't exist and providers would take the same money.
Approximately 95% of households spend more on insurance every year than the actual health care costs. I personally average hundreds of dollars per year on routine health care, not counting exceptional injury. Insurance premiums alone for an individual are upwards of $4000. That differential is why all the insurance people get paid. Only about 3% of households have health care costs each year that exceed base insurance costs by 10X. Remember that your employer is paying the bulk of the premium, your $60 per month is a pitance.
If you're one of the households exceeding payments by an extreme amount the insurance may be a windfall. An alternative would be getting the premiums your employer pays to someone else. This would leave you at risk, of course, in the event of any major injury or illness. That last statement implies that having insurance alleviates this risk. Does it, though?
What percentage of bankruptcies involve major medical expenses?
Of those, how many had insurance? (Which didn't protect them financially.)
More to the point:
Of households in any given income bracket, say yours, who suffer a major medical problem and have some standard insurance through their employer, what percentage still file for bankruptcy?
Same question for those without insurance.
I found quite a bit of data that looked like any major medical problem was as likely to send you to bankruptcy court whether you were insured or not. New bankruptcy laws now and I have no idea how this will effect things in the future, but financial devistation is devistating whether you can file or not.
Insurance costs thousands of dollars per year. What gets covered and what doesn't on your next potential policy? Even if it gets covered, how? 80/20 split? 20% of $30,000 will still break most households.
I'd rather see a plan where instead of paying my premiums that money would just go into a flex fund. Use it or lose it. Any unused monies to go to a general healthcare fund. It would encourage routine medical because that amount of money is way more than most people would ever spend anyway.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Bravery
Four things to consider. On one extreme there's BRAVADO. Then, INNOCENT FOOLHARDINESS. Next is BRAVERY. Finally, COURAGE.
Bravado. This is false bravery, and it's a show. In some cases it may be noble. In an extreme emergency, when lives are on the line it may give others a (false) sense of security and allow cool heads to prevail. Mostly, it's just some fool's pride.
Innocent Foolhardiness. This is close to Bravado in showiness, but not for others benefit, and close to Bravery in it's fearlessness. A good portion of time it's just ignorance. Such as someone crossing boundaries at the zoo to pet the pose next to the bear.
Bravery. This is a lack of reasonable fear. Some people just aren't scared. These are the people who put themselves in risky situations that others won't. Often, there is the attitude that the worst that could happen is you die. Brave people are often working for a cause, and in that respect are very close to being Courageous, except they're not overcoming fear, they don't have it.
Courage. Courageous people are afraid, but not cowards. Courage is always noble, and always a reaction to the greatest fear. Courage is the putting of others wellbeing above your own.
Bravado will step into a bullring, on the far side from the bull, so everyone will see him in with the bull. Bravery will think, "What an idiot" and go in to get him because he knows the bull and is in control. Foolhardiness will think that was cool and jump into the ring, hoot, holler and flail arms because it's fun after eight beers. Courage, after yelling cautions from the safety of the fence will run in when the bull feigns charges. His fear for himself is great, but his fear is greater for what will happen to the Fool if he does not act.
Bravado. This is false bravery, and it's a show. In some cases it may be noble. In an extreme emergency, when lives are on the line it may give others a (false) sense of security and allow cool heads to prevail. Mostly, it's just some fool's pride.
Innocent Foolhardiness. This is close to Bravado in showiness, but not for others benefit, and close to Bravery in it's fearlessness. A good portion of time it's just ignorance. Such as someone crossing boundaries at the zoo to pet the pose next to the bear.
Bravery. This is a lack of reasonable fear. Some people just aren't scared. These are the people who put themselves in risky situations that others won't. Often, there is the attitude that the worst that could happen is you die. Brave people are often working for a cause, and in that respect are very close to being Courageous, except they're not overcoming fear, they don't have it.
Courage. Courageous people are afraid, but not cowards. Courage is always noble, and always a reaction to the greatest fear. Courage is the putting of others wellbeing above your own.
Bravado will step into a bullring, on the far side from the bull, so everyone will see him in with the bull. Bravery will think, "What an idiot" and go in to get him because he knows the bull and is in control. Foolhardiness will think that was cool and jump into the ring, hoot, holler and flail arms because it's fun after eight beers. Courage, after yelling cautions from the safety of the fence will run in when the bull feigns charges. His fear for himself is great, but his fear is greater for what will happen to the Fool if he does not act.
Friday, July 20, 2007
ADHD
This one kills me. I think mostly it's a crock. Everyone has impulses. Many of mine are to backhand kids diagnosed with ADHD. I control those impulses. So far. Controlling impulses isn't easy. These I suppress because of outside influence. There are laws and if I started backhanding unruly children I'd go to jail. That's a consequence. It is applied with consistency. It has a meaningful impact on my behavior. I don't backhand children who deserve it, I do have the impulse. I often wonder how much of ADHD is really just parents who suck at being parents. Without the law in place I assure you I would be backhanding a few children. Many homes have no law in place. There are no consequences for actions. Without consequences there is no reason to curb impulse. And we arrive at children with no impulse control. They are diagnosed with ADHD, wrongly because it's not caused by any chemical imbalance but by neglect in the home. Well meaning doctors prescribe drugs found to be effective in cases of actual ADHD, but these drugs are inefective when the problem is lack of parenting. There have, apparently, always been ADHD children. There have not always been the problems associated with them. In older, less "enlightened" times, stark discipline was well able to distinguish between actual cases of ADHD and children who lacked discipline at home. Even now I know children who will behave for me but run rampant over their parents. They know, beyond any doubt, that I will punish them if they misbehave. They know, beyond any doubt, that their parents will not. This even seems to have worked with the actual ADHD children, to an extent. But that was an extent that curtailed the problems we commonly see now. And that was without any drugs. Anyone doubting this should interveiw an old teacher, especially a nun. Knuckle rapping works to maintain order. Even with kids who have poor impulse control it gives pause. A moment of thought about the impending consequence for unruly behavior. And that often results in impulse control in children who have poor impulse control. Mostly, though, I think it is a problem with adults that manifests in their children. If you are ill equipped for parenting, which takes much time, effort, care, planning, participation, relief, backup, etc. then you should definitely refrain from having six children. As the problem is most often an imbalance, not in the head of the child, but in the head of the home, perhaps that is where some consequences should be directed. In Arizona parents are responsible for the torts of their children. Perhaps what we should do is call the police and file for disturbing the peace. If you can't control your children that's your problem, don't make it mine. Let them run amuck at home, not in the restaurant where I'm trying to enjoy a meal.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Junk e-mail
I'm happy to say that, although the bored 25 year old girls don't seem to want to talk to me anymore, probably because nobody wants to sell me any ED drugs this week, but, oh yeah, happy to say that my home refinance loan has been preapproved. By about a dozen people so far. If I could just figure out a way to refinance with all of them at once and then declare bankruptcy.
About Cool
There are two kinds of cool. Real and imagined. Some people just are cool. I don't know what really makes them that way, they just are. Some people want to be cool so bad they'll do anything to get that quality, the one I don't know what is, that will make them cool. You see this all the time in teenagers, and it makes a certain bit of sense that they'd be going through some identity issues. What gets me is that you see it in so many adults. I guess nobody knows what that cool quality is, really. Evidently, a lot of people were counting on it being the iphone. They waited in line for days, for a phone. I guess to be cool you have to have all the right stuff. Unless, of course, you're one of the real cool people who just are cool. Until we find a way of injecting the imaginary cool people with the real cool quality I suppose there'll be all those people trying to fake it with gadgets. Now a question for all the fakers, one of which I'm sure I am. If you are so insecure with yourself that you have to buy all the tools of cool in the hope that you will then somehow be cool because you've got the stuff, can you ever really be cool at all? Maybe the first step to actually being cool is to accept yourself and stop worrying about whether anybody thinks you're cool.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Things about the "war on terror"
What annoys me about our present “war”
Politics is an attempt to change an opponents policies utilizing logic, pressure, reward, influence, etc. War is an attempt to overpower the opponent so that you can implement your own policy. The use of politics to reach an end of armed conflict is perfectly legitimate. In that regard war can be seen as a political tool. However, war should always be what it is. It should always be a legitimate attempt to conquer. The political part comes in the form of motivation. “Let’s solve this at the table while you still have power before I solve this on the battlefield and you have no power.” In this present conflict we have, and have had, are highest military powers on sight acting for political purposes. There is much talk, it is in fashion, about “winning the peace.” It is not a new idea. Sun Tsu’s The Art of War addressed it. If I remember correctly by going to war we lost the peace. The idea now is to win the war. This should be a decisive effort. Perhaps I don’t remember so well. Perhaps Sun was wrong. And I realize he didn’t actually write it. What we have now is a combination of aborted politics and aborted military action. All in all, just an abortion. Unfortunately, since the abortion is being conducted by our military, our militants are in the middle of it. We have fought in such a politically motivated way that one of our concerns was minimizing the American body count, but on a day to day basis. We didn’t go in, overwhelm and secure. To do so would have cost too many American lives that month. It’s the same as the financial policies that brought down so many huge corporations. I would have rather had ten times as many dead at the beginning and on third the dead now. And I think those go together. And I think that’s why Sun wrote what his student wrote. And I think he was right when someone else wrote it. And I think the best course of action now is to do the job, do it fully, and do it forcefully so that it gets done. I think the second best course of action is to get out without doing the job. I think that would be mocking our dead, but it wouldn’t be making more of them.
Speaking of mocking our dead. I am also mildly sickened by the media’s, and to some extent the concerned families’, use of the term hero. The word means something to me. I checked in the dictionary, and granted I use an old dictionary, I prefer them, and it says I’m right. Being a hero means you did something extraordinarily courageous. We send out ten patrols on the same route on some certain day. The first nine complete the route without incident. The last goes along without incident until it’s blown up by a roadside IED, killing the entire crew. They are touted in the back home press as heroes. They did the same thing the other nine crews did. That means they did nothing extraordinary and therefore nothing heroic, in as much as their patrol was concerned. The only thing they did that was different from the rest was dieing. That brings us to the common meaning of hero. As commonly used in our press, hero just means dead. In reality, many of those who die in war may be heroes. But dieing didn’t make heroes of them. I’d love to see some news reports that honor those who die by reporting what did make them heroes. By reporting all who die as heroes our press only mocks the heroism of those who truly are heroic, including those heroes who die in roadside bombings and are called heroes only because they died.
The third thing is the use, or overuse, of the term terrorist. I’m not sure how we define it. Clearly, we mean our enemies. My mind, though, continues to return to the earlier discussion of fairness. I guess I’m a little concerned with absolutes. For instance, what is terrorism in absolute terms. From there I can work back toward reality, which rarely exists in absolutes. Are we the greatest terrorists of all time? I refer to the mass killing of civilians perpetrated by the United States against the Japanese. I don’t think anyone could make a decent argument against it in terms of lives. By simple numbers I think we’re ahead having dropped the bombs, on both sides. The Japanese warriors were tenacious. They would have killed many, many more American warriors had the war continued. That is clear. It is also clear that many, many more Japanese warriors would have died had the war continued. In terms of numbers, I think that more Japanese soldiers would have died than Japanese civilians who did die. So a great number of military lives were saved on both sides. We traded those military lives for civilians. Non-combatants. We killed people who weren’t fighting us to save our own soldiers’ lives and the lives of the soldiers who were fighting us. We call the tragedies of 9/11 great acts of terrorism because of the human toll, and because that was just people like you and me who went to work that morning, or were simply traveling, people who were non-combatants. We killed teens and preteens, the elderly who had to be held up when they walked and mothers suckling their infants, and their infants. When I step back to where my terms of absolute are and try to decide what an act of terror is, without the luxury of whether the person(s) committing the act are our enemies, I am ashamed of us. And that statement extends past WWII. The actions of our troops in non-battle conditions and the CIA’s recent “Extraordinary Rendition,” as well as other, long standing policies regarding clandestine ops, or a sniper’s SOP concerning POWs.
Lastly is that there is a war on terror at all. President Bush, Sr., got our troops onto the Saudi peninsula on an explicitly temporary basis. That has changed to semi-permanent at the very least. The presence of our (infidel) troops there is sacrilege for Islamics. This isn’t because they took a vote after we went there and decided they didn’t want us. This was part of their religion before the discovery of the new world. Not since we got there, not since the formation of this nation, not since the colonization of the Americas by (predominately) Christians, but since the time that the terms of their religion were set out. We knew this. Sr. put us there knowing the sentiments it would cause, and Presidents and Congresses on both sides of the aisle have kept us there knowing it. Our politicians knowingly went looking for a fight and got it. Our presence on their holy ground is the origin of the terror we now fight. Our continued presence is it’s nourishment. Withdrawing our troops from the Saudi peninsula would do more, and be cheaper, than all previous and current efforts combined toward eliminating the scourge of terrorism.
Politics is an attempt to change an opponents policies utilizing logic, pressure, reward, influence, etc. War is an attempt to overpower the opponent so that you can implement your own policy. The use of politics to reach an end of armed conflict is perfectly legitimate. In that regard war can be seen as a political tool. However, war should always be what it is. It should always be a legitimate attempt to conquer. The political part comes in the form of motivation. “Let’s solve this at the table while you still have power before I solve this on the battlefield and you have no power.” In this present conflict we have, and have had, are highest military powers on sight acting for political purposes. There is much talk, it is in fashion, about “winning the peace.” It is not a new idea. Sun Tsu’s The Art of War addressed it. If I remember correctly by going to war we lost the peace. The idea now is to win the war. This should be a decisive effort. Perhaps I don’t remember so well. Perhaps Sun was wrong. And I realize he didn’t actually write it. What we have now is a combination of aborted politics and aborted military action. All in all, just an abortion. Unfortunately, since the abortion is being conducted by our military, our militants are in the middle of it. We have fought in such a politically motivated way that one of our concerns was minimizing the American body count, but on a day to day basis. We didn’t go in, overwhelm and secure. To do so would have cost too many American lives that month. It’s the same as the financial policies that brought down so many huge corporations. I would have rather had ten times as many dead at the beginning and on third the dead now. And I think those go together. And I think that’s why Sun wrote what his student wrote. And I think he was right when someone else wrote it. And I think the best course of action now is to do the job, do it fully, and do it forcefully so that it gets done. I think the second best course of action is to get out without doing the job. I think that would be mocking our dead, but it wouldn’t be making more of them.
Speaking of mocking our dead. I am also mildly sickened by the media’s, and to some extent the concerned families’, use of the term hero. The word means something to me. I checked in the dictionary, and granted I use an old dictionary, I prefer them, and it says I’m right. Being a hero means you did something extraordinarily courageous. We send out ten patrols on the same route on some certain day. The first nine complete the route without incident. The last goes along without incident until it’s blown up by a roadside IED, killing the entire crew. They are touted in the back home press as heroes. They did the same thing the other nine crews did. That means they did nothing extraordinary and therefore nothing heroic, in as much as their patrol was concerned. The only thing they did that was different from the rest was dieing. That brings us to the common meaning of hero. As commonly used in our press, hero just means dead. In reality, many of those who die in war may be heroes. But dieing didn’t make heroes of them. I’d love to see some news reports that honor those who die by reporting what did make them heroes. By reporting all who die as heroes our press only mocks the heroism of those who truly are heroic, including those heroes who die in roadside bombings and are called heroes only because they died.
The third thing is the use, or overuse, of the term terrorist. I’m not sure how we define it. Clearly, we mean our enemies. My mind, though, continues to return to the earlier discussion of fairness. I guess I’m a little concerned with absolutes. For instance, what is terrorism in absolute terms. From there I can work back toward reality, which rarely exists in absolutes. Are we the greatest terrorists of all time? I refer to the mass killing of civilians perpetrated by the United States against the Japanese. I don’t think anyone could make a decent argument against it in terms of lives. By simple numbers I think we’re ahead having dropped the bombs, on both sides. The Japanese warriors were tenacious. They would have killed many, many more American warriors had the war continued. That is clear. It is also clear that many, many more Japanese warriors would have died had the war continued. In terms of numbers, I think that more Japanese soldiers would have died than Japanese civilians who did die. So a great number of military lives were saved on both sides. We traded those military lives for civilians. Non-combatants. We killed people who weren’t fighting us to save our own soldiers’ lives and the lives of the soldiers who were fighting us. We call the tragedies of 9/11 great acts of terrorism because of the human toll, and because that was just people like you and me who went to work that morning, or were simply traveling, people who were non-combatants. We killed teens and preteens, the elderly who had to be held up when they walked and mothers suckling their infants, and their infants. When I step back to where my terms of absolute are and try to decide what an act of terror is, without the luxury of whether the person(s) committing the act are our enemies, I am ashamed of us. And that statement extends past WWII. The actions of our troops in non-battle conditions and the CIA’s recent “Extraordinary Rendition,” as well as other, long standing policies regarding clandestine ops, or a sniper’s SOP concerning POWs.
Lastly is that there is a war on terror at all. President Bush, Sr., got our troops onto the Saudi peninsula on an explicitly temporary basis. That has changed to semi-permanent at the very least. The presence of our (infidel) troops there is sacrilege for Islamics. This isn’t because they took a vote after we went there and decided they didn’t want us. This was part of their religion before the discovery of the new world. Not since we got there, not since the formation of this nation, not since the colonization of the Americas by (predominately) Christians, but since the time that the terms of their religion were set out. We knew this. Sr. put us there knowing the sentiments it would cause, and Presidents and Congresses on both sides of the aisle have kept us there knowing it. Our politicians knowingly went looking for a fight and got it. Our presence on their holy ground is the origin of the terror we now fight. Our continued presence is it’s nourishment. Withdrawing our troops from the Saudi peninsula would do more, and be cheaper, than all previous and current efforts combined toward eliminating the scourge of terrorism.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Religion (3)
This is about alligience, doctrine and denominations. Mostly its just an attempt to put this thought down clearly. That may not be happening, but that's the attempt.
In many ways it is close to identity. At the outset of this nation, we had Virginians who were American. I am an American who lives in Arizona. Post Civil War we saw a change in identity that way. But in terms of the church: Am I a Christian who is Baptist? Am I a Presbyterian who is Christian? Can I be a Christian with no affiliation? Maybe a Catholic but not Christian? That last one we see all the time. Social congregations, or at least people in the congregation who are only there for social reasons. Whether that be for socialization or to relieve social pressures, 'cause after all you should be in church. The third one, no affiliation, I see more and more often. It's not just the freaks anymore. A lot of people who are fed up with the crap at church. I think there is a cause and effect relationship with those social goers. But the first two, I think there's a line there that's been so blurred that nobody knows there's a line anymore. I think there's a critical difference between those two. The difference? Those who grow, and those who don't.
We've gotten together into groups, decided what is right amongst ourselves, and written it down. It's the writing that ruins it. We're people. We know that if it's written then it must be true. So we continue to follow what we wrote. For the most part what we wrote about the Bible has become more supreme than the Bible itself. After all, any idea or plan that we take to the congregation gets screened past our doctrinal statement, not past our Bible. That's because our doctrinal statement explains what the Bible means. We don't really understand the Bible when we read it, but our doctrinal statements are in a language we actually speak, in a form we actually speak it in. KJV is great, but I've never heard anyone speak that way, except when they pray, or do Shakespear, or are joking around about the Bible or Shakespear. So we go with our easy to understand doctrines because they're written down so they must be true and right. So who's right? Well the Baptists have their doctrine, they're right, just ask 'em. The Presbyterians have their doctrine, they're right, just ask 'em. The Catholics have their doctrine, they're right, just ask 'em. So far I'm okay with this. But then I notice that the Baptists are Baptist, not Presbyterian or Catholic. Same with the others. In fact, every denomination that isn't Baptist isn't Baptist. And Baptists aren't any other denomination except Baptist. It turns out that Baptists are the only Baptists, even when I thought there might be some other Baptists somewhere else, no, no other Baptists except Baptists. Same for the others. There are all these different denominations because the denominations are different. I said I wanted to state this clearly, and you can't get much clearer than that. When I was in grade school we studied math. We would get quizes to keep us motivated. On the quizes were math problems. The whole class got the same problems. A lot of different answers wound up on the teachers desk. I don't remember any-one who turned in an answer because they thought it was wrong, that didn't start until middle school. Inevitably the teacher would only accept one answer as correct, claiming that was the way of it. Only one answer was true and correct. I think God is as bad about that as my math teacher. My math teacher wasn't math, but God is God. He knows what is of him and what isn't. He knows his desires and his commands. He knows his standards and how plainly he laid them out. Out of all the denominations out there, with all their subtle differences, and all that aren't so subtle, there is the possibility, and I won't even say likelihood, that as many as one is right. At least all but one are wrong, and probably more than that. Only one more, but still, that's more. So I'm going to say this, and I'm saying to you, directly to you: Your church, and for that matter your personal, doctrines are wrong. I mean that in the way of no partial credit. You shouldn't take it to mean that your church doctrine says no sacrificing babies so you'd better start sacrificing babies. Please keep that part. Those doctrines were set by a group of people that were all at their individual points along the journey of getting to know God. I don't imagine that any, and certainly not all were at the point in that journey we'd call a finish line. So the standard that we use, in each of our churches, except maybe one, is flawed, but that's our standard. If ever we, in our personal lives, come to an intimate knowledge of God and, in our communion with him come to understand a better truth than what is offered by the church doctrine, what happens? We can share it, and hope to overcome the reluctance of the church to change the doctrine, which has been tried and shown itself true for all this time. After all, we're the one church that's got it right. That reluctance is great, and it should be. A lot of people make the claim of knowing a better truth, that's how a lot of denominations got started. Usually, I don't think it came from a deep, personal, intimate relationship with God where he showed you something. In that regard denominations are good, but even that is bad. We shouldn't be thrown about by every new doctrine, we should be solid. But we should be solidly on the truth. Instead we're solidly on what was given to us by the last generation of Christians of our particular affiliation. These differences that we take as truth on a church by church basis are huge. I'm not talking about which hymnal we're going to use. When we listen to someone talk about their openly homosexual lifestyle, will we ordain them? Some churches, holding it out as the truth of God, say yes. Other churches, holding it out as the truth of God, say no. I don't think both are the truth of God.
So there's the question of alligance. I know it's hard to see. You read your Bible. You see what God says a pastor needs to be. Among other things is sexually moral, by God's standard, not Cosmo's. You read through, cover to cover. You see what God's standard of sexual morality are. This guy has just told you that he's actively gay. You happen to be in one of the congregations that accepts this. Where is your alligance? Now it's not a question of homosexuals. Your perspective new pastor wants to give the congregation a feel for him. So he tells you he's single, but dating. He has a beautiful girlfriend and they're talking marriage so there could be wedding bells just around the corner. Of course, in the mean time they're living together and checking their sexual compatibility because that's such an important part of marriage. That's okay with your church doctrine. What about you? Do you go with the standards set by that group of guys or the one you find directly in God's word? What about the leaders in your church?
For the most part I have to think that the church leaders would support the church doctrine. They got to be leaders because the bought in to the doctrine, it is how they believe, it is what they teach. They teach the congregation to believe the doctrine. Because it's written down, so it must be true. In this way it perpetuates itself. Unfortunately, it is most peoples great aspiration to rise to the lofty heights of the church doctrine. That's not what they say. They say the lofty heights of God's word. It's just that in reality, in practice, they aspire to doctrine as Bible.
I've worked with kids. I've worked with kids in church. In church one of the most disheartening things I heard, and heard often was the answer, "Because that's what I was told" to the question, "Why do you believe that?" There you have young people developing a relationship with the church, not a relationship with God. And an alligance to the church, not to God. That's how you get a congregation that will confirm that single, sexually active and proud of it because she/he is hot candidate.
Back to that revelation. The other option is breaking from the church. Maybe just a little, maybe just here and there. Maybe more. Maybe it's a question of having alligance to God before and above alligance to this or that congregation or denomination. My statement for today: There are those who grow and those who don't, the difference is where your alligance is. You may grow in your church, you may grow in your social standing, you may be revered because of your speaking, teaching, singing or instrumental abilities,but you will not grow in God if you are not in him.
In many ways it is close to identity. At the outset of this nation, we had Virginians who were American. I am an American who lives in Arizona. Post Civil War we saw a change in identity that way. But in terms of the church: Am I a Christian who is Baptist? Am I a Presbyterian who is Christian? Can I be a Christian with no affiliation? Maybe a Catholic but not Christian? That last one we see all the time. Social congregations, or at least people in the congregation who are only there for social reasons. Whether that be for socialization or to relieve social pressures, 'cause after all you should be in church. The third one, no affiliation, I see more and more often. It's not just the freaks anymore. A lot of people who are fed up with the crap at church. I think there is a cause and effect relationship with those social goers. But the first two, I think there's a line there that's been so blurred that nobody knows there's a line anymore. I think there's a critical difference between those two. The difference? Those who grow, and those who don't.
We've gotten together into groups, decided what is right amongst ourselves, and written it down. It's the writing that ruins it. We're people. We know that if it's written then it must be true. So we continue to follow what we wrote. For the most part what we wrote about the Bible has become more supreme than the Bible itself. After all, any idea or plan that we take to the congregation gets screened past our doctrinal statement, not past our Bible. That's because our doctrinal statement explains what the Bible means. We don't really understand the Bible when we read it, but our doctrinal statements are in a language we actually speak, in a form we actually speak it in. KJV is great, but I've never heard anyone speak that way, except when they pray, or do Shakespear, or are joking around about the Bible or Shakespear. So we go with our easy to understand doctrines because they're written down so they must be true and right. So who's right? Well the Baptists have their doctrine, they're right, just ask 'em. The Presbyterians have their doctrine, they're right, just ask 'em. The Catholics have their doctrine, they're right, just ask 'em. So far I'm okay with this. But then I notice that the Baptists are Baptist, not Presbyterian or Catholic. Same with the others. In fact, every denomination that isn't Baptist isn't Baptist. And Baptists aren't any other denomination except Baptist. It turns out that Baptists are the only Baptists, even when I thought there might be some other Baptists somewhere else, no, no other Baptists except Baptists. Same for the others. There are all these different denominations because the denominations are different. I said I wanted to state this clearly, and you can't get much clearer than that. When I was in grade school we studied math. We would get quizes to keep us motivated. On the quizes were math problems. The whole class got the same problems. A lot of different answers wound up on the teachers desk. I don't remember any-one who turned in an answer because they thought it was wrong, that didn't start until middle school. Inevitably the teacher would only accept one answer as correct, claiming that was the way of it. Only one answer was true and correct. I think God is as bad about that as my math teacher. My math teacher wasn't math, but God is God. He knows what is of him and what isn't. He knows his desires and his commands. He knows his standards and how plainly he laid them out. Out of all the denominations out there, with all their subtle differences, and all that aren't so subtle, there is the possibility, and I won't even say likelihood, that as many as one is right. At least all but one are wrong, and probably more than that. Only one more, but still, that's more. So I'm going to say this, and I'm saying to you, directly to you: Your church, and for that matter your personal, doctrines are wrong. I mean that in the way of no partial credit. You shouldn't take it to mean that your church doctrine says no sacrificing babies so you'd better start sacrificing babies. Please keep that part. Those doctrines were set by a group of people that were all at their individual points along the journey of getting to know God. I don't imagine that any, and certainly not all were at the point in that journey we'd call a finish line. So the standard that we use, in each of our churches, except maybe one, is flawed, but that's our standard. If ever we, in our personal lives, come to an intimate knowledge of God and, in our communion with him come to understand a better truth than what is offered by the church doctrine, what happens? We can share it, and hope to overcome the reluctance of the church to change the doctrine, which has been tried and shown itself true for all this time. After all, we're the one church that's got it right. That reluctance is great, and it should be. A lot of people make the claim of knowing a better truth, that's how a lot of denominations got started. Usually, I don't think it came from a deep, personal, intimate relationship with God where he showed you something. In that regard denominations are good, but even that is bad. We shouldn't be thrown about by every new doctrine, we should be solid. But we should be solidly on the truth. Instead we're solidly on what was given to us by the last generation of Christians of our particular affiliation. These differences that we take as truth on a church by church basis are huge. I'm not talking about which hymnal we're going to use. When we listen to someone talk about their openly homosexual lifestyle, will we ordain them? Some churches, holding it out as the truth of God, say yes. Other churches, holding it out as the truth of God, say no. I don't think both are the truth of God.
So there's the question of alligance. I know it's hard to see. You read your Bible. You see what God says a pastor needs to be. Among other things is sexually moral, by God's standard, not Cosmo's. You read through, cover to cover. You see what God's standard of sexual morality are. This guy has just told you that he's actively gay. You happen to be in one of the congregations that accepts this. Where is your alligance? Now it's not a question of homosexuals. Your perspective new pastor wants to give the congregation a feel for him. So he tells you he's single, but dating. He has a beautiful girlfriend and they're talking marriage so there could be wedding bells just around the corner. Of course, in the mean time they're living together and checking their sexual compatibility because that's such an important part of marriage. That's okay with your church doctrine. What about you? Do you go with the standards set by that group of guys or the one you find directly in God's word? What about the leaders in your church?
For the most part I have to think that the church leaders would support the church doctrine. They got to be leaders because the bought in to the doctrine, it is how they believe, it is what they teach. They teach the congregation to believe the doctrine. Because it's written down, so it must be true. In this way it perpetuates itself. Unfortunately, it is most peoples great aspiration to rise to the lofty heights of the church doctrine. That's not what they say. They say the lofty heights of God's word. It's just that in reality, in practice, they aspire to doctrine as Bible.
I've worked with kids. I've worked with kids in church. In church one of the most disheartening things I heard, and heard often was the answer, "Because that's what I was told" to the question, "Why do you believe that?" There you have young people developing a relationship with the church, not a relationship with God. And an alligance to the church, not to God. That's how you get a congregation that will confirm that single, sexually active and proud of it because she/he is hot candidate.
Back to that revelation. The other option is breaking from the church. Maybe just a little, maybe just here and there. Maybe more. Maybe it's a question of having alligance to God before and above alligance to this or that congregation or denomination. My statement for today: There are those who grow and those who don't, the difference is where your alligance is. You may grow in your church, you may grow in your social standing, you may be revered because of your speaking, teaching, singing or instrumental abilities,but you will not grow in God if you are not in him.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Politics, Sudan, Darfur
A couple of days ago President Bush gave a speech about Sudan. In it he raised sanctions. One of his sound bites was "we will not turn a blind eye to the genocide" happening in the Darfur region. It sounds good. Really, though, it is just a continuation of our standing policy. We don't turn a blind eye to it, we do turn our good eyes away. As far a good, non-made-up intelligence goes, we have more reason to go into the Sudan than we had for going into Iraq. Human rights issues that make Iraq seem like a bad day at Disneyland. Well established connections with terrorist organizations. No WMD, but then, no WMD for Iraq either.
We stood by, averting our healthy eyes, during their civil war. We stand by now as several farming peoples are decimated. We failed to act when it was Christians being killed, we don't act now when it's Islamics. They have horrific human rights violations, but we don't act over horrific human rights violations. They have ties to terrorists, but we don't act over terror connections. We don't seem to act over anything, oh, they don't have oil.
As Americans one of the basic tenets of our political and social beliefs is that government only has power by the consent of the governed. I can pretty much guarantee that tribes being wiped out in the Darfur region aren't consenting. There are governmental and government sponsored human rights attrocities going on right now, as they have been going on for four long, deadly years. We don't have to agree with every other form of government on this planet, and they don't have to agree with ours. But our theory of government self authorizes us to take action when we know something like this is taking place, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about it. Instead of acting because its right to do so we stand by, shaking our finger. Perhaps its unrelated, but the Darfuri don't effect us economically.
We stood by, averting our healthy eyes, during their civil war. We stand by now as several farming peoples are decimated. We failed to act when it was Christians being killed, we don't act now when it's Islamics. They have horrific human rights violations, but we don't act over horrific human rights violations. They have ties to terrorists, but we don't act over terror connections. We don't seem to act over anything, oh, they don't have oil.
As Americans one of the basic tenets of our political and social beliefs is that government only has power by the consent of the governed. I can pretty much guarantee that tribes being wiped out in the Darfur region aren't consenting. There are governmental and government sponsored human rights attrocities going on right now, as they have been going on for four long, deadly years. We don't have to agree with every other form of government on this planet, and they don't have to agree with ours. But our theory of government self authorizes us to take action when we know something like this is taking place, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks about it. Instead of acting because its right to do so we stand by, shaking our finger. Perhaps its unrelated, but the Darfuri don't effect us economically.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)