So, I after the nice instructions from Maalie via a reminder from Triston, I've just decided to post some links this way for your reading pleasure.
"Questioning the Right to Health Care"
"Libertarians Do Care About Patients"
and finally, The Future of Too Big to Fail and Bailouts
Don't miss the pdf link to other reports at the bottome - but be nice - if we're lucky, the author may decide to drop in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
121 comments:
I haven't had time to look through these links yet Susan. I have to pop off to have that wretched tooth extracted this morning:(
I just want to make a comment about one of your comments on the last post.
I don't think Maalie would object to living by the 10 commandments. In fact he probably does, apart from the 1st commandment! It's just he doesn't believe in the stories of the Bible and it's scientific value.
p.s. mind you, just checking on the commandments, I'm not sure he keeps the Sabbath holy. And I'm not sure about covetting his neighbour's wife, ass, manservant, etc. Then there's the small question of adultery. Perhaps we had better no go there after all!
Susan and everyone,
I remain unconvinced after reading the articles, though admittedly I had to go through them faster than I would choose.
If the author is Libertarian do you know what that means? Also this on the Libertarian Party, here.
I find his views interesting, and I need to read into Libertarianism more, though initially I rejected it.
The idea that his position is more caring about people is intriguing. And if we can really drive down health care cost and make it truly affordable to people, then good.
I'm skeptical about his analogies. What we're doing now is unsustainable (he'd agree). He would argue, and Don and you and others, that it's because we've socialized what we're doing too much. I'd argue that it's because what we're providing is too expensive both to the consumer and the insurance companies. TORT reform would help, but this is a many sided monster we're dealing with.
Just leaving it to the free enterprise and let it work out does not take into account human greed. I'm sure he'd address that some way. And because of human greed and not caring about people, there is wrongdoing within insurance companies is my guess.
This is interesting on insurance companies (less than five minutes long).
This, according to Scot McKnight in yesterday's post on "Obamacare":
"Basically, it's a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage."
Yes, Lorenzo.
God's law condemns us all in our sins. And shows us our need of a Savior, that we can't do it ourselves.
Let me add to my first comment from Scot's post:
"Switzerland...: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can't discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies."
Instruction? What instruction? I don't remember issuing any instructions! I responded to Donsands with s rhetorical question, and expressed an opinion!
I believe only two of the ten commandments (to do with killing and stealing) are enshrined in USA law, and you don't need the bible to tell you about THAT! All extant cultures (including atheistic ones) consider that killing and stealing is wrong.
I affirm, I do not want to be governed by anyone makes policy because they think they have "spoken to god". And that includes people who believe that someone could have lived in the guts of a fish for a week!
This world will be a Muslim one in a generation or two anyway, so we might as well all start learning the Koran.
Greetings to the Halfmom community. Thanks to Susan for throwing a couple of my articles on this blog.
I wanted to throw out a few thoughts from Ted's comment. (Sorry in advance for this long comment.) First to say, I think its a great thing that so many Americans are engaging on this issue. Too many things the government does slip by the American consciousness. Understandably, health care is something that is close to a lot of people, so it is something all should wade into with some trepidation.
I should first point out an important distinction about Libertarianism. By and large this is the belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility. It takes on some different forms depending on how extreme and individual is. But as a philosophical and political philosophy, it is often not as crazy as some make it out to be. Yes, we believe in the legalization of drugs (because we think society would be better off and the war on drugs is actually causing more harm to people than good), but no we aren't opposed to the government providing roads and a national defense. There are a few "crazies" in the libertarian movement, but there are in any other political movement. It is also worth noting that libertarianism is distinct from the libertarian party. Most libertarians don't align themselves with the LP, myself included. I work for a libertarian organization that largely takes issue with many things about the LP. Explaining that would take more space than anyone wants to read here.
As to health care. For anyone interested in the libertarian view on health care I would suggest reading some of the articles of Reason Magazine. They touch on the issues well. I've also written a number of blog posts on the subject.
A little more on health care...
Something Ted said is a point I'm interested in discussing. I'm sure you guys have talked about human greed in this blog community before, and I'm interested in your thoughts on this. I tend to see greed as a driving force as a positive for the health care realm. The desire to make money is a powerful motivator, but profit itself isn't evil. And when the desire for profit creates powerful new drugs or drives an increase in quality of care through technological advance, then it seems "greed" is doing good.
Now, we could be talking about different definitions of greed. One may thing certain drugs are overpriced because of the "greedy" drug companies. But they don't make those products out of the goodness of their hearts. They spend a lot of money on them, and then charge accordingly. After five to seven years patents run out and cheaper generic brands hit the markets. But if we attack those companies ability to charge a premium for their new products, because we somehow feel we have a right to those products because they save lives, then companies will simply stop making them all together.
I say that, but I do understand the complications. There are people who are very sick and dying and can't afford certain treatments. The technology is there, but the money isn't. And it seems cold hearted to say that the rights of the drug companies to make a profit, or of hospitals to charge high for procedures, should be protected over that person's life. But the way I like to think about it is from a long-term, short-term vantage point. We can use government power and taxpayer money to force drug prices lower and force insurance companies to cover more things, like pre-existing conditions, etc. And in the short term we might actually lower costs on something and extend types of coverage. But where do we stand in the long-term?
What about the drugs that aren't made because its not worth it to produce them? What about the insurance companies that shut down because they can't afford to cover people with serious pre-existing conditions, hurting all the people that could afford their previous program and liked it? There area million other things, but hopefully my position is clear there. It's not pretty, I know. And it may be a little utilitarian. But I think we need to be seriously considering this perspective when discussing health care reform.
This isn't a comprehensive response to ObamaCare or the idea of universal health care, just some thoughts for discussion. And, yes Ted, I think the current system is unsustainable and we need serious reform. I just think there are other options to be discussed that aren't being given the fair share on the national stage.
Thanks, Anthony.
I'm short on time by the nature of my job, and was fortunate to read your good, thought provoking comments.
I agree that there needs to be the incentive of the free market. I don't call that greed, but as part of our humanity we work on goods and services to make a living, maybe to live a certain way (it can certainly become greed in a sense which Christians cannot accept). I would just say that this needs to be balanced out with a sense of loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Socialism with a utopian aim is prone to evil, almost from the get go. Obama is influenced strongly by Reinhold Niebuhr, and understands him well than most. Niebuhr believed in orginal sin and that we will never achieve any utopian state in this world. I think Obama is more on that page. So that he would vie for an economic package that kept the free market strong within needed parameters. Of course everyone would be debating on where those parameters are, but that's a part of our American system.
Just my feeble words and thoughts on this.
Let me add at the end of my lunch here, as a Christian I operate (and others, of course) with the premise that I live in and by the kingdom of God come and present in Jesus. And that kingdom is to touch all of life.
And I see America as influenced by the Enlightenment with the emphasis on individual rights. So that I think America needs to be impacted by us who are the salt of the earth and the light of the world in Jesus, by an ethic which has been called "the Jesus Creed," and which Susan and others here have pointed to: to love God with all our being and doing, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Contained in "the Lord's Prayer", the "Our Father" prayer.
But how we work things out from that underlying foundation, will differ, to be sure.
Some hurried thoughts here, before I must return to work.
Thanks.
Yes, the drug companies are extremely greedy and immoral. They charge exhorbitant prices to provety stricken African countries for medicines to fight the aids virus.
Anthony,
I find your writing and thoughts interesting, and even fascinating. I am running into this and that problem: need a new car battery, bathroom work needed, etc. I hope others weigh in, but I also hope and plan to give your articles another read later, and give your comments more thought as well.
I maybe can ask this now:
Do you believe God holds nation-states accountable for laws or policies that may hurt the poor? Also, do you believe that God holds nations accountable to help those who are in need? Of course, if so, it should help them to become contributing citizens, to be sure. Just a question kind of out of the dark. Sorry if I'm mixing too much into this exchange so far (though I know what I'm saying is quite simple).
And I look forward to more from Lorenzo and others.
The problem with the poor, and welfare and all that is there are many who are not really poor, and there are those who like being poor, and there are many lazy poor, and there are many greedy poor, and there are those who are truly poor.
Helping the genuine poor is a good thing, but they usually don't want charity, though it's good when we can bless them.
there's so much more to the poor than meets the eye. And the politicians never talk about all that, they just say we want to give billions to the poor, and that sounds good, but it sure ain't good, just saying it and doing it like that.
The government needs to become way, way, way, way, smaller. But it's getting way, way, way, way, way, bigger.
Ted,
Interesting question. I am a Christian (I'm not sure where everyone on this blog stands, but I assume most are of some theological perspective or another). And I do believe that my political and religious (or faith if you prefer) views should align.
That said, the question is does God hold nations accountable for their actions, specifically in how they treat the poor. And in short I would say both yes and no.
No in the sense that I don't believe God would directly curse America and cause something to happen to it outside of the natural order of things because we politically screwed up a policy that he wouldn't vote for. I believe he could, but I don't think he does. However, I do think that nations are held accountable for their actions in the sense that God has laid down some pretty clear rules about things and made his desires known. And these things are just for the sake of making rules, but are because they are best practices for life. So when we abandon God's plan or start coloring outside the lines (whether as a nation or person) then we naturally bring problems on ourselves. So if we explicitly passed policies that hurt the poor, sure things probably wouldn't go well for us given the abandonment of God's best practices principles.
Of course, we have to define what "hurting the poor" would mean. And although on the surface it would seem that giving the poor health insurance from a public option helps them, I would argue that hurts them. To start with, health insurance doesn't cover everything. And a public option plan is going to be lower quality insurance than any private plan out there right now. So if you think the options now are bad, its not like we're giving the poor something that will cover heart transplants for all. Instead we'll be increasing the cost of health care itself and neglecting a chance to bring real change to health care. And real change would decrease prices and increase services—and that would be helping the poor. To do otherwise hurts them.
I should add here that if the public option (or co-op system) winds up being better than private plans, then you're gonna get a wave of people that want to join it. Why not join the cheaper, better insurance option. The only problem is that all those people leaving the private companies will cause insurance costs to go up. And that will drive more people away. Eventually the better plan offered by the government will become unsustainable, wasteful, and wind up with more problems than we currently have with Medicare. I wrote more about this an a post titled: "Public Option is an Economic Nightmare."
One more thing, I would also argue that minimum wage hurts the poor because it, among other things, artificially inflates the price of wages, distorts business practices, and keeps certain businesses from expanding by limiting their use of resources. This hurts the economy and ultimately hurts employment itself. And the less jobs their are for low-income families the more the poor are hurt.
There are a lot of ways we are hurt the poor as a nation that we may be held accountable too one day. But how you define that is important in terms of what your policy position is after answering your question about God's role in the future of America.
What do you think about making it mandatory for all employers to provide basic healthcare to their employees? That wouldn't solve the problem completely, but it sure would make it so all "working class" people are covered with healthcare. That seems like a good idea to me.
Don, I'm pretty much a capitalist myself, but I am much more sympathetic to the poor and socialized advantages for them because of all my exposure to desperately poor people here in Nepal.
Hi Llama - how is tooth? Better now that it's not there?
Oh Maalie - I meant that you sent me nice instructions about how to use HTML tags to embedd a hyperlink but I couldn't remember them. Triston saved your email so he sent them to me again. They were pretty clear but I chickened out and just decided to make a new post for these hyperlinks.
Welcome, Anthony. Perhaps each of you might like to tell Anthony a bit about yourselves? I think you're all here, except Craver that is. He seems to be missing of late.
As to greed - I don't actually believe that's a topic we have discussed here - surprisingly.
Halfomom: Ah, those instructions! Sorry, I read it as if I had instructed you to write that post! Sorry, misunderstanding :-)
A little joke that reminded me of some of the things said around here lately (please delete if inappropriate):
A man was riding his Harley along a California highway when, suddenly, the sky clouded above his head and, in a booming voice, the Lord said 'Because you have TRIED to be faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish.'
The biker pulled over and said 'Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can ride over any time I want'.
The Lord said 'That request is materialistic; think of the enormous challenges for that kind of undertaking, the supports required to reach the bottom of the Pacific, and the concrete and steel it would take! It will nearly exhaust several natural resources. I can do it of course, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of something that could possibly help mankind.'
The biker thought about it for a long time.
Finally, he said 'Okay, I wish that I, and all men, could understand our wives; I want to know how they feel inside, what they are thinking when they give us the 'silent treatment'; why they cry, what they mean when they say 'nothing's wrong'; and how I can make a woman truly happy.'
And the Lord replied 'You want two lanes or four lanes on that bridge?'
Maalie,
I had to laugh on that one. But women can look at us and do the same thing, just shaking their heads in bewilderment, and rightfully so. Plus we can hurt our woman badly, so easily due to faults and failings of our own. I know this from personal experience, and at least I've learned from it. :)
Anthony,
Thanks for your comment. I've been getting less sleep lately, but will read it more and think on it when I have time. Especially the new link you sent.
I am a seminary graduate who actually works at a factory job at RBC Ministries in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I am in my 50's, and you can find out more if you like by clicking my name, and I do have my blog, but most of us bloggers do.
Sorry Susan, about my poor instructions. I was in a hurry, and did the best I could with what time I had. That's the way I do it, but the way Maalie told you some time ago would be handier, if one gets that down- my guess.
Anthony,
I'll keep reading, and I appreciate what you are saying.
People live in a SOCIETY. Individual rights are important and have their place. But in Scripture society is emphasized. Shepherd-Kings caring for the sheep within a state. Joseph providing in a socialistic way due to the famine in Egypt, after the years of abundance, etc.
America, and the American dream maybe is often or essentially turning something good into bad due to sin. So maybe the mechanism is not bad itself, but becomes bad because of sin.
Greed as in being driven to become rich, and loving money is idolatry. When it's all about the goal of making a lot of money, the tendency is for humans to neglect those who do not. This seems evident time and time again in Scripture. So that I'm far less sanguine about just letting the free market work, and then all will get their share eventually. Ideal, and would probably be true if all just worked within that system, but we know that regulations and laws from government are bound to come, because people don't do what is right, just, good and fair to all.
I think your joke is pretty funny, Maalie! I'll try the embedding within a comment later, too!
Now - I'm curious, though our theology is very different I'm surely interested in which of the 10 commandments you think would make a society bad to live under past the first 4 or 5 that actually deal with God Himself?
Also, did you see the report that they'd found glycine in commet dust?????? How cool is that???
Ted, I believe that we are held responsible for our actions and non-actions. The fact that we are born in countries that (in my view) are highly immoral, is a random act of birth. All we can do is live with integrity and canvas politicians where we can.
Donsands. You are being extremely judgemental here about the poor. Who are you to decide whether people are being lazy, who like being poor, who are greedy poor, etc.? You don't know the circumstances of their lives, yet you make judgements about them.
We all know some people who screw the state for what they can get, but they are in the minority.
Another one of your sexist jokes Maalie!
My priest told me a story: it's Sunday and a mother goes to her son's room to wake him up. Get up, she says, it's time for Mass.
Ten minutes later he still wasn't up. She goes back upstairs. Come on, get up. It's Sunday and time for Mass.
I don't want to go, he says. I don't like going. It's boring. Give me one good reason why I should go.
Mother answered: Because you are the priest.
> they'd found glycine in comet dust -Susan
Perhaps so...or maybe the scientist examining the dust didn't wash his hands after lunch.
BTW: I'm thinking about super-gluing a baby pigs head onto a penguin’s body, so I can fool the entire scientific community, as well as National Geographic, with a another hoax\proof of Darwin’s farce and have a good laugh at their expense.
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for your input here.
I'm an American Christian living in Nepal. I'll leave my occupation to your imagination.
You gave an argument for the validity of letting pharmaceutical companies charge whatever they want. Fine, but I can give you another example of Capitalism at work over here in South Asia: Those pharmaceutical companies in America pay millions to create the drug and charge an arm and a leg to American people for it. Then a pharmacist in India or Nepal buys just one pill, grinds it up, finds out the exact chemical compound of the drug and then starts selling the very same medicine to millions of people cheaply here. That is capitalism at its best baby!! No cost to us. All profit! We don't have to abide by your US laws. These are sovereign nations.
I like this system. You guys pay a fortune and rape the American and Western world with exorbitant prices, and we just buy the same drug for pennies over here. No problem with it because that is capitalism at work.
Triston
"We all know some people who screw the state for what they can get, but they are in the minority." Llama
I have met many poor people working in a mission downtown Baltimore, and most of them cared only about themselves, and what they could get for themselves. The greater percentage were schemers.
We worked out of a mission, and we would give food stamps to the poor, and they would sell them for a few bucks. so they could by drugs.
There's plenty of poor people who manipulate and don't care about much else except how they can get some money.
There are those who are in need as well. But they are the minority in my opinion. You say the opposite Llama.
I suppose we both may just be guessing, but I simply going from the percentage of phonies I have be aquainted with compared to those who are really poor, and need our help, and in fact, don't want to accept charity.
Bottom line for me is Christ and His grace in my life. And so I'm ready to help anyone at any time, which I have done throughout my years as a Christian.
(Before I was a Christian I didn't really care.)
Also many of those who came to the church for hand outs were manipulators. I've been there and seen it.
But even those who are playing me for their own benefit, I speak the truth in love to, with compassion. And still try to help them, especially preaching the Gospel of Christ to them, so that they may find the true wealth, which is forgiveness for their sins. And yet some of those who are down on their luck, so to say, are wonderful Christians as well.
One more: I had a guy the other day ask me for a couple bucks to get something to eat. I gave him two dollars. He said, "Wow, I should have asked for 5 bucks! Ha ha!"
I said, "I wish I never gave that 2 dollars to you. You didn't say thank you, or appreciate what I just gave you. You're a fool."
He then said thank you. I said too late pal.
I had another guy ask me for 5 dollars at the bus station. I asked him what he wanted it for. He said, "It's none of your business what I want it for."
I said, "Man, you are arogant. I would have perhaps helped you out if you told me wanted you needed it for, but you have a bad attitude brother." He actually got mad at me for not giving him 5 dollars.
Amazing.
I also knew a lot of homeless people in Ocean City MD, and have a lot of stories there as well.
I have seen it Llama first hand.
"That is capitalism at its best baby!!"
That's not capitalism Triston. There are always going to be crooks in the market place. But for the most part capitalism works, as Milton Friedman explained.
I have a company that makes money, and I wish I was more free to simply work hard and give a good product for a good price, which is what I do, but the taxes are incredible, and all the "mandatory" government things coming may just put us out of business.
Small business is essential in order for America to come back from this horrible recession.
It's difficult to have a business, but I'll keep on trusting in the Lord.
It seems like the rich people are evil. It's evil to make a lot of money, even if you work hard for it, and are blessed by the Lord with it. The government simply says, "Hey, you have too much money, we want 50-65 % of your money."
That kind of stealing and theivery seems to be alright with a lot of people in our culture and age.
Donsands, there are plenty of rich people too, who manipulate and don't care about much else but getting what they want.
I thought the idea of the early church was to share and share alike, not rich people hoarding their wealth whilst the poor went hungry. I would say Jesus was a pretty good communist.
I think I understand in part where you're coming from, Don. Small businesses are probably more vulnerable, especially if they're expected to pay mega-dollars for health insurance.
And Lorenzo, many of those who make more money here are weary of giving the government their money. Many of them like Don, and even Bill Gates comes to my mind (his wife I read once, is a professing Christian) do plenty of good to help the poor and for good causes.
I think that as citizens of society we have to be involved in society's workings to some extent. If I'm a citizen of a nation, let's say, with thousands starving, then I would have to be thankful if my government took action to relieve their situation I would think. Of course in democracies, and maybe especially so here, it's "we the people," so that we have a voice in how that should be done.
At the same time we Christians would want to major on our special calling of being Christ to those people and to those in need, as Christ's Body in the world.
"..there are plenty of rich people too, who manipulate and don't care about much else but getting what they want."
Amen to that Llama.
But there are rich people who are generous too.
Jesus became poor, so that we could become rich.
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich." 2 Cor. 8:9
And of course Paul is referring to spiritually rich.
Jesus said to the church of Smyrna, "I know your poverty, but you are rich."
"“‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.’" Rev. 2:9-11
I'm sure that Christians will welcome the release on compassionate grounds of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi who has terminal cancer.
compassionate to him, Maalie, or to the victim's families that never got a chance to grow old and die?
I don't know all the facts, Maalie. But I personally do welcome his release on those grounds!
Susan,
There should be compassion to all. I believe God's justice is to make things right in this world and such justice seeks to restore all. In doing that, we seek to show mercy in ways we can.
It should be restorative justice that is the aim even in this world, not retributive justice. (or as most would say, not JUST retributive justice). I think this is in significant part what Charles Colson's ministry is about, though I don't know he'd agree with my position on this prisoner's release.
Keeping him locked up won't bring back the victims. There is nothing to be served by keeping him in prison to the cost to the tax-payer of some £10,000 a week (I think). You can be sure that he wont re offend.
Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.
Ted - He has 3 months to live Ted because he has end stage cancer. I don't know how compassionate God is toward unrepentant sinners, Ted.
Sure he won't offend again - how so, Maalie? Can a leopard change his spots even when he is old and sick? Keeping him locked up won't bring back the victims, but it will give some balm to their families. Certainly letting him go on humanitarian values just rubs salt in their wounds.
You're right, Maalie - vengeance does belong to God and not man (or me) and God will have vengeance for the lives lost. However, there's a vast difference between suffering the just consequences of your actions and being the victim of someone trying to exact vengeance.
Oh well, we'll just have to disagree.
since when did you give up so easily, Maalie?
"On Wednesday 21 December 1988, the aircraft flying this route—a Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas—was destroyed by a bomb, killing all 243 passengers and 16 crew members.[1] Eleven people in Lockerbie, southern Scotland, were killed as large sections of the plane fell in and around the town, bringing total fatalities to 270. As a result, the event has been named by the media as the Lockerbie Bombing."
A man who did such a despicable heinous thing has forfeited freedom. If I were judge, he would be executed for killing these innocent people, and causing unconscionable pain to the families of these victims.
I would send a minister of the lord to him, if he so desired, so he could make his peace with God. But I would definitely put this man to death. Therefore, no £10,000 a week.
This world has become upside down to me.
Justice is very biblical.
I was mixing this up with another story I knew of, but just the same I stand by what I said earlier. But if he were not sick, he should remain in prison.
Yes, Susan, this is a difficult one, maybe not for you, but for me. We don't know where he is with God. He claims to read the Bible, but is probably Muslim and certainly is only right with God through faith in Jesus.
This opens up a big subject beyond the scope of this comment: about what we are as the salt of the earth, and the light of the world in Jesus, what forgiveness entails in our lives, and how the rest of the world is to be impacted by that.
Don,
Yes, the death penalty is indeed just in this situation, and would be especially so under the American system (maybe so under their- Scottish system as well) even with our problems.
But with Jesus having come and having absorbed evil on himself, we can say that a new ethic mirroring the kingdom of God in Jesus in this world, is in place. One that seeks to forgive all enemies of God, and all murderers, such as the Apostle Paul was. So that justice now is taken to a higher place.
But in this world, while such need to be confined, there also should be mercy. And justice needs to be not only retributive, but restorative. However such justice must be applied to the victims. They need to be afforded the opportunity to talk with the perpetrators, or those convicted, and vice-versa. Of course there has to be an openness on both sides. They will only be free if they work on forgiving the wrongdoers, from the heart, a process and difficult, indeed.
This is in light of God's kingdom come in Jesus. And works only through Jesus, yet needs to become a part of how all even in this world are called to work out such matters.
A very tall order, and we in Jesus must be the ones seeking to live this out, having the attitude and heart in Jesus, of Stephen, and countless others.
I would take this back though, if it was evident (and to some it is, I am gathering, as I read on) that the man is unrepentant in the face of overwhelming evidence, or even proof (I don't know enough about the case). I did hear a man say that he thinks the man is innocent and a scapegoat, and that justice has not been rendered in this case (others, or the criminals, not having been found and prosecuted). And if it's in large part because the Scots don't want to pay the medical bills, then it's/that's not right. But from what I heard it's a law on their books, actually UK law, though I don't know specifically what the law says.
So what I'm saying is that if one is unrepentant, then it does at least put up a question mark, and if it appears that the evidence against them is clear, then I would not favor that convicted one's release because of terminal illness.
>the man is unrepentant in the face of overwhelming evidence
Unrepentant to whom? As far as he was concerned, he was doing his god's will. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr. And as an independent observer here, I would say that his god (Allah, is it?) is certainly winning the power struggle of the deities. I think Litl Luther is right there. If I was forced to adopt a religion, Islam would certainly now appear to be the best bet.
There has always been an groundswell of senior legal opinion that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was framed as a scapegoat. Such miscarriages of justice are far from isolated. This is just one reason why I am against capital punishment.
Actually you are all wrong!
There is growing evidence that it wasn't a Lybian plot but an Iranian plot. All the British relatives of the victims believe that he was innocent, as he always claimed. There was only a very tenuous link with a 'gentleman' in Malta that convicted him.
Over the years, more and more evidence has come in, that points to it being an Iranian plot. Afterall, the Americans HAD just shot down an Iranian passenger plane.
A lot of this information has been repressed because of politics, but it is gradually being released now. Let's all wait and see.
This is a case where capital punishment could have been a gross travesty of justice.
>This is a case where capital punishment could have been a gross travesty of justice.
I agree wholeheartedly.
If Abdelbaset is innocent, then he should be released and compensated financially for them ever imprisoning him, but if he is guilty, then a noose should be hung around his neck and his body dropped. Keep him alive long enough to kill him! If he's guilty, I'd be happy to donate the rope and make the noose myself. I learned how to make that knot in Boy Scouts.
Ted, biblically you are dead wrong! One main purpose God has for governments, in Jesus, IS to inflict retribution on evil doers:
"Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God....For he [the governing authorities] is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” (Rom. 13:1-4)
I agree with you, Triston, up to the word guilty. "If Abdelbaset is innocent, then he should be released and compensated financially for them ever imprisoning him, but if he is guilty,..." That also is the scripture that came to mind as applicable to the situation for believers. I'm still not sure how I feel about the death penalty though - remember, I live in Illinois. We have had so many death row cases turned over on DNA (no Maalie, don't go there) that I am hesitant to inflict it.
What concerns me the most at this point is that he was welcomed home a hero - a living martyr. I realize that a good bit of anti-American sentiment is well-earned. This is not and it does nothing to soothe the situation; it just inflames it further and incites more killing.
Below is a portion of a comment that Maalie just posted. I have taken my moderator responsibilites seriously and removed a portion of it that I think is inflammatory.
Maalie -
The guy has terminal cancer for goodness sake, show a little compassion mate!
7:55 AM
I'm going to remind you all of you - you may disagree with one another as much as you like. However, you must do so civilly. You may not attack one another personally.
Don wrote: "That's not capitalism Triston."
Don, I think you are right, and I think you are wrong. I was speaking of the "capitalism" that Anthony presented to us: the capitalism that allows pharmaceutical companies to do everything based merely on profitability, which is why drugs like Tamiflu are unavailable in Nepal!!!!! They are concerned about profit—not saving lives. And so I was comparing that brand of "capitalism", which Anthony shared with us, with the brand of "capitalism" found here in Nepal. And I side with the Nepalese and Indians in their cheating the pharmaceutical companies out of more money by making the drugs themselves without permission. I say "Go for it!" What do you expect to happen when poverty-stricken people are abandoned in their poverty? All the Indian and Nepalese are doing is taking some money out of the pharmaceutical company pockets, that is much more ethical than letting people die in Africa (as Renzo so rightly pointed out), just because their is no profit to the pharmaceutical companies to save those peoples' lives.
Between those two "brands" of capitalism (i.e. pharmaceutical and Indian), I say the Nepali and Indian brand of capitalism is MUCH more ethical.
>We have had so many death row cases turned over on DNA (no Maalie, don't go there)
Why not Halfmom? You must be worried about justifiable accusations of the hypocrisy of Christianity that Bill Maher referred to. You can accept DNA science when it comes to criminal evidence but reject the same science when it comes to population genetics. Cherry-picking the science.
Triston,
I'm not sure what you are saying I'm dead wrong about. I certainly believe the passage you quoted (and add the end of Romans 12 on for context). I made no statement about capital punishment. I don't think Romans 13 does, but we'll all have to agree to disagree on that one.
I think I explained it in terms of Jesus' coming and the kingdom of God so that we are required to live out and point people and humanity to a different way in Jesus.
Maalie,
Of course repentance is a good thing when people do a heinous wrong. People should be sorry and make reparations, and work at reconciliation, don't you think.
As for God, yes. Of course we who believe in morality believe in meaning beyond just what you see and observe in science and nature.
Lorenzo,
Yes, I was catching wind of that yesterday. On NPR a man said he thought true justice had not taken place, that the man is a scape goat, and I thought he intimated or said that a good number there believe that.
Sorry Maalie - I don't think I know who Bill Maher is.
Cherry picking - yes, we've been over that before, haven't we. I cherry pick all the science I read. Yesterday it was the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. And yes, I definitely cherry picked through that one, enough to make a good cherry tart or two!
I'm not sure how you, Ted, and you, Susan, can disagree. What do you do with that statement from the text I quoted:
"he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister" ??
What were SWORDS used for to inflict justice by the governing authorities upon evil doers in the Apostle Paul's day? Could you both please answer that question?????
Or I'll answer it for you: The "sword" was used to inflict capital punishment. That is what Paul is obviously talking about. End of debate. God put them in place to inflict capital punishment. And God still does so today. End of debate. It seems irrefutable to me.
Ted, the dead wrong comment was regarding you taking the side that he should be freed merely because of health reasons. There is no biblical basis for this. He should receive retribution for his crime. That is the governments job, a job appointed to them by God Himself.
Bill maher
Fundamentalists revile him as much as they do the great Richard Dawkins.
There is the faith element though, Maalie. We live by faith in "God's word." So we Christians can't not deny that, and I hold to it, want to live by it, and die by it.
I might not have such consternation, Triston, if it were 100% clear that he was guilty.
Though, perhaps I am cherry-picking my scripture as well as my science :)
It seems to me that in the days of global crime, it is much harder to really know that someone is guilty and who is "most" guilty when one layer plots and plans and hires another layer to do more detailed planning and yet another to execute. It seems hard to me, in many cases, to make a judgement call.
It seems hard to me, in many cases, to make a judgement call. -Susan
No. Susan, you find it quite easy to make judgment calls. You do it all the time. You are the overlord of this site, and I've had enough. The way you handle things is the reason I don't want to come here.
You are quite right, Triston. I do make judgement calls here. But here my rationale is clear, at least to me.
And it doesn't wrongly cost someone his life. It only costs you the "right" to say what you want on my blog. Yet, you can say what you want on yours, so I don't see that I've taken anything of particular value away from you since your free speech is intact.
I want there to be a freedom to discuss issues that matter to us all, no matter what our persuasion. But I want it to be done in a civil fashion. Inflammatory speech is just a tactic that is used to derail a discussion when it's not going like you want it to, whether from design or from bad temper.
Ok, the comedian. I'm sorry, I wasn't thinking in that context but when I went to the wiki I recognized the picture. Actually, though a bit crass, I think what I've seen of him is rather funny. I'm just not inclined towards that type of humor, nor staying up as late at night as would be required to watch him. I'm afraid my "boyish enthusiasm" quotient of energy isn't as great as yours!
That's the point. My speech was not "Inflammatory". Therefore, I am dissatisfied with the judgment calls you make. So I resign.
You are welcome to comment at my blog, but this (I hope I have the willpower to keep this oath) will be my last comment at yours.
>I do make judgement calls here. But here my rationale is clear, at least to me.
Litl Luther: I whole-heartedly agree with Halfmom's prerogative to do that. It is her blog and she is the sole arbiter of what goes on it. I have been absolutely astonished at her tolerance of what she allows here, you would not see this on many blogs.
Personally I routinely delete comments that I feel are not bang 'on topic', and I don't happen to wish my blog to become a chat page. That is my choice, and we should allow (nay, welcome) Halfmom hers.
>I'm just not inclined towards that type of humor
Nor am I, I don't see his programmes, I simply saw his name come up elsewhere in that context (might have been at ESI). I have never really been keen on "stand-up" humour, but it is uncanny how good comedians sometimes have very penetrating insights in to subjects like politics and religion. As they say, 'many a true word is spoken in jest'.
Hey, word verifucation: mating (honest!).
Too funny - word verification, that is.
Gosh, no one would ever consider this blog on topic!
Gotta run - the day awaits and it's really full! Being back in the lab is fun, but it's really hard work!
Well actually I think Ted is right, if anyone is interested!
Personally I believe Old Matey (I can't be bothered to look up how to spell his name) is a scapegoat, but even if he wasn't, and he was guilty (unlikely) I still think he should be released on compassionate grounds.
We base our lives on Jesus teachings, and he said to the adulteress 'nor do I condemn you' and then 'go sin no more'. Do you really believe Jesus would be calling for him (like Luther was) to have a noose around his neck and his body dropped. How graphic!
I'm glad there is no death penalty in the UK. So many innocent men and women have gone to their deaths.
Oh and Luther. Don't bother with tamiflu. It's not very good apparently. But, the drug companies are making loads of dosh out of it.
It is a tough position to take to deny the death penalty, on the grounds that arguably Genesis 9:6 continues for all humankind today:
"Whoever sheds human blood,
by human beings shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made humankind.
Genesis 9:6
But I believe this on the basis that a new order from God is now present in the coming of the kingdom of God in Jesus.
So that how we in Jesus are to live out our lives here as the holy nation, and the new Israel, is to be lived out and proclaimed in Jesus for others to follow. This is from the bottom up kind of change. It involves winning others to Christ, but also involves impacting all of the world, in every sphere.
And it's because Jesus has absorbed on himself all the evil that this new order is now in place. It involves us taking up our cross, and living as Jesus did, as God's resurrection people.
Jesus tells us how this is to be worked out by us in this world:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:38-48
This guy I found to be funny. He's for the most part unfoul in his language. But he can be, well, just like the rest.
Anyhow, I thought he was quite humorous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTOq4x5xn0&NR=1
Of course we're interested in what you think, Llama. I just happen to disagre to some extent with yours and Ted's viewpoints as well as Triston's. I think we have to interpret the Romans 13 passage in light of the Matthew passage and vise versa - and then come to some meaning that allows both passages to be correct. If not then we have not correctly interpreted either passage into practical usage.
Through with dr's appointments for the day and headed into the lab - finally - I'll be off here for awhile so I'll answer other comments tonight.
Both passages are correct to be sure, but have to be considered in context. Jesus leaves no option open for those who follow him, and the new order is in place. So while capital punishment is just, it is not in order now. Certainly not for Jesus followers, and actually to be ruled out by all humans according to God's will in his kingdom present now in Jesus.
Romans 13 must be interpreted according to what just preceded it. That God's people are NEVER to bear the sword to punish evildoers is what I believe from Jesus' words quoted above. The state is called servants of God there in what they do, but that doesn't make it God's will for his people. He simply uses the state, just as he used Cyrus as his messiah, even though Cyrus didn't know God.
Bonhoeffer, Jim Elliot held to Christian pacifism, so you can be a committed believer and hold to it, believing the Bible is God's word.
And I believe Jesus' ethic goes in an opposite direction of what I pick up from many Christians in their view of war and justfying it. Even if Christian pacifism is wrong which it isn't, it still has something important to teach the church if nothing more than to get people to reading and taking seriously Jesus' words again, and seeing Paul line up with Jesus as well in this.
Bonhoeffer should be cannonized! He is simply wonderful!
"Bonhoeffer should be cannonized! He is simply wonderful!"
He was in on the assassination attempt on Hitler, did you know?And yet he was tremendously troubled with it.
He was killed by hanging, and a very brutal hanging.
I have one of his devotionals, and I glean much from him.
Yes, my favorite from him is "Life Together." But all of his books are worth reading. I like "Cost of Discipleship" a lot. He makes it clear in "Letters and Papers in Prison", another outstanding read, that he never left his pacifism expressed in "Cost" behind. And I read that he regretted his part in the assassination attempt.
He maybe is the most interesting theologian of the 20th century, and his life to the end, though not perfect by his own account, really was one lived well in light of his profession of faith.
He is definitely one of my favorites. I wish he were alive today and could speak into our world now. I would be among the many who would want to learn all I could. Remembering too, that he is only a man.
Funny - I just got home (yes, it's almost 9:30pm) and an Amazon box was waiting on me - and one of the things it contains is the CD version of Bonhoefer's "Life Together". I'm spending so much time on the road that I thought it would be much faster to listen to it a couple of times rather than read it.
>I think we have to interpret the Romans 13 passage in light of the Matthew passage and visa versa
I'm afrais I still get very perplexed by all this "thinking" and "interpreting". Anyone is entitled to their interpretation, of course, but there are likely to be countless different interpretations, aren't there? People "thinking" that they have to interpret something ambiguous in one way or another.
In the extreme (hence the word "extremist) the different interpretations can lead to dissidence, violence and war, until you can have (as I have said before) opposing armies on a battlefield praying to the same god that their soldiers will kill more of the enemy.
This is one of the main reasons that caused me to reject Christianity: I should want an almighty everlasting heavenly father to be more clear in his instructions for the code of life he wants for us. And that is ignoring all the gross errors and untruths in the bible.
Maalie: your Heavenly Everlasting Father actually does make it pretty clear what he wants of us. All this interpretation etc. is as you say, confusing, but the basics are fairly clear.
Luther! I've see you have resigned! Well I never! You are so good at dishing it out, but not so good at taking it back, hey?!
Lorenzo: I fear that the bible makes it far from clear. That is why everybody "thinks" they have to "interpret" things in their way. We are obliged to interpret the mythology of Genesis, Noah and Jonah, for example, and it seems far from clear to me.
That's why there are so many different Christian cults with as divergent views as Calvinism to Anglicism.
But what do I know, I am not even among the chosen elect.
Nah, course you are in the Elect!
I'm sure there is a good debating society in heaven that would welcome such a belicose participant, with mock humility, as you! You would keep them all on their toes!
If you take all the parables, myths, poetry etc. out from the Bible, there is a very simple message. It is people that make it so difficult to understand by their 'interpretations' and a certain amount of spiritual arrogance!
ouch, Lorenzo. Are you accusing me of spiritual arrogance? that's a strong charge, so let me know if I am understanding you correctly.
Ah Maalie, you sister has pegged you well. Mock humility doesn't become you and it's a bad debating technique.
First Scripture is understood in light of the Biblical writer to the Biblical audience. That is generally not what is in debate. The question is always, "what does this mean to us today in how we should like our lives." As Lorenzo says, the basic message that "God so loved the world that He sent His only so that whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life" is pretty clear and easily understood by all who will hear.
The walk is one of faith in Christ's righteousness, not our own. You wish for a legalistic society so you can earn grace by your adherence to the rules. What you fail to understand is that God did make the basic rules very clear - not much hard to understand about the 10 commandments, is there? You clearly have broken several of those rules and are condemned by God to hell for it. But graciously He has already offered you as Savior and a way to live (with the indwelling Holy Spirit) that will give you the power to live without breaking His laws. But it appears that you have decided that you are quite good enough as you are and thumb your nose at Him. That is well and good since you reject that He is or that He made you - that hypothesis removes the inherent obedience required from the creation to the creator. The test will be whether you are right or not, won't it - if He is there as I say that He is, then you're pretty much dead meat, aren't you?
>then you're pretty much dead meat, aren't you?
I'm afraid so Halfmom! It's a jolly good job I'm not superstitious! As I have said before, I was a pretty committed Christian once but felt so liberated when the scales of delusion fell from my eyes. It was truly like being born again. And you know what put me off? The arrogance of "holier than thou" Christian fundamentalists and their selfish introspection! Oh, with a little help from the great Richard Dawkins, of course.
>You wish for a legalistic society so you can earn grace by your adherence to the rules.
Did I say that? It doesn't sound like me because I have no clear idea what "grace" actually is.
Sorry, I missed this bit:
>you have decided that you are quite good enough as you are and thumb your nose at Him.
Oh, I could not agree that I am "quite good enough". I fear I fall short in many things and have struggled to improve throughout life. Maybe I would thumb my nose if I thought there was a "Him" if I thought one existed. I respect the laws of my country and those that I visit.
But I suppose that in your own righteous eyes I must be a very bad person.
and there you'd be wrong, Maalie, assuming that I think you're a "bad person" and that I am a righteous and good one. in fact, based on just human goodness, I'd say you far surpass me.
except for the grace of God imparted to me through Christ, I have absolutely no righteousness at all. except for His Holy Spirit living in me, I have no power at all not to sin or to do the good that I want to do. I blew through the 10 commandments long before I was 20 i think. anything good in me, He gets credit for and anything bad I get credit for, I'm sadly afraid.
my working definitions (remember, I'm a teacher of high school and junior high school students as well as college ones, so I use the simple ones) grace is getting something good from God I did not deserve and mercy is not getting something bad from God that I very much did deserve.
it's surely hard to picture needing mercy from a God you do not believe is there - I understand that. but that does not remove the Truth that He is there; He is a knowable God who loves and cares for you.
you can accuse me all you want of being, lets see, what did you say, arrogant, holier than thou fundamentalist (whatever that means), and a selfish introspective? ('arrogance of "holier than thou" Christian fundamentalists and their selfish introspection!') - and perhaps I am. Certainly I have been accused of it here and otherwise recently. But the fact remains, I care for you and desire for you to know the God who is there in a personal way.
Susan, I would never accuse you of spiritual arrogance! You are just the opposite!
Maalie, quit this 'poor little boy who is lost' attitude. It doesn't become you! I'll have to start calling you Uriah soon.
Just checking, Llama - always seems wise to ask rather than assume one way or the other.
Uriah????
>poor little boy who is lost'
Lorenzo: Lost? I don't get it. I feel I have a very clear direction in life.
Uriah Heep is a character in one of Dickens's novels, David Copperfield I think.
He is an obnoxious, hand-wringing, 'ever so humble' sort of person!
Maalie, it is YOU who keep burbling on about not being one of the elect. I meant 'lost' in that sense.
Lorenzo: The point I have always made is that those who are elected always seem to know it (that is basically what I mean by fundamentalist arrogance).
So, logically, since I do not know if I am elected, I have no alternative but to presume that I am not!
Anyway, it's a lovely autumnal day here in Mintcakeland, so I'm off down to the sea to make some ritual sacrifices to my Pagan Gods who treat me well. They give me grace Hahahaha! (as Simon would say!).
Maalie,
About your comment on Christians being divided, etc., there are certain CONSTANTS which remain the same no matter what. We say we believe it this way or that, but we "know (only) in part" as Scripture says. So it's no wonder that as humans Christians have different perspectives (of course) and don't get everything right.
The Bible mirrors real life. Real life has plenty of ambiguities and unanswered questions. A good book to read in this light is the book of Job. God doesn't even answer his questions in that book, but points Job to himself and his marvellous works in creation.
And the answer is not found in the natural world or in what unites humanity together. But in Jesus, who is the one in whom all things and people in him will be united forever. And that begins now for ANYONE through faith in Jesus.
Ted,you don't believe the book of Job is true though, do you? I was always taught that it was a poem. A very good poem, but a poem non the less.
Maalie, I don't know who is elected or not. I certainly don't take it that I am. I once had a friend who told me 'her name was written in the Book of Life'. I was tempted to say 'well bully for you', but it just left me shaking my head in disbelief.
I would have thought that no-one knows who is 'elected'. Even giants of the New Testament like Paul didn't necessarily think that he was. After all, Jesus did say 'he that is first shall be last, and he that is last shall be first'.
p.s. Enjoy your walk.
I heard on Radio 4 this morning that a nucleur power station was destined for the Duddon Valley. Any truth in that?
"That's why there are so many different Christian cults with as divergent views as Calvinism to Anglicism."
And there always shall be.
However, there is only one truth. There's the one fact of history that Jesus of Nazerath died on a wooden cross, crucified, and was buried. And three days later He rose from the dead, all by Himself. With the Father of course.
Once you believe the gospel with a faith that says, "I believe I am a sinner and I need help. Help me Lord Jesus, and forgive me, and have mercy on me," then you will know the truth, the one truth, and you will be set free.
Very good dialog Susan and Maalie and Llama.
I like what you stated here Susan: " it's surely hard to picture needing mercy from a God you do not believe is there - I understand that. but that does not remove the Truth that He is there; He is a knowable God who loves and cares for you."
Everyone have a terrific weekend. Lord bless us all. Amen.
(Computers sure can be tricky, what I sent was lost, so I'll try a new one again).
Lorenzo,
Yes, I believe all the Bible is true, and that the story of Job is a true story. Job was a real person, and that story rings true, true to life. It's a remarkable read. God was helping Job to put his faith in him in the midst of terrible trials, strengthening Job's faith in that process.
Anyone who puts their faith in Jesus becomes elect in the Elect One, Jesus. He is God's Chosen One and when we by faith in him become God's people, we are then called to the same mission he has made possible by his death and resurrection: to bring this good news of God's kingdom to others, that they might find through God's grace in Jesus forgiveness of sins and new life in him. And a new path for living, as well as the mission God has for us in bringing this kingdom to all, even here and now.
Ted, do you really believe that God had a bet with the devil? In any case, surely God would know the outcome of the contest before it started, so it was a pretty useless sort of bet.
I would think that the story is told for humans, as humans would not know the outcome.
I can't really believe that God was into gambling!
Even the Methodist minister told me it was just a story!
Llama,
I have a challenge for you. Use a concordance, and look up the name Job. Then go to all the Holy Scripture passages and see what God says about Job. And let me know what you find out.
Sometimes we simply need to read and study the Word for ourselves, and then the Holy Spirit enlightens our minds, and even refreshes our souls.
>In any case, surely God would know the outcome of the contest before it started, so it was a pretty useless sort of bet.
Lorenzo: You make a brilliant point there. There is absolutely no point in doing anything - god already knows what is going to happen - he decided at the Big Bang. Why pray? Are you really going to get god to change his mind about something he has already made up his mind about?
The more I think about it, the more ridiculous the idea of a god becomes. But I can understand why humans needed to "invent" one, in order to give a semblance of control. Like, why our village got destroyed in an earthquake but not theirs. To ascribe it simply to "god's will" is all too convenient. But deluded.
>Sometimes we simply need to read and study the Word for ourselves
What? In order to learn that a man survived in the guts of a fish for a week? No thank you Donsands, NO Sir-ee!
Donsands, I know exactly what God said about Job. I do know the Bible quite well you know. But just because we know what God said about Job, doesn't make it a true story. It's a wonderful story, and the words God spoke to Job were beautiful.
Maalie, prayer isn't just intercessionary. We don't always pray because we want things, either for ourself our for others, but that comes into it too.
Prayer is much more meaningful than that but I daren't put my theories down here because you would laugh me out of house and home!
>you would laugh me out of house and home!
Oh no, not out of your house! And certainly not out of your kitchen. Where would I stay before catching my planes?
Lorenzo, From what Don said here are the two passages I saw other than the book of Job, which refer to Job:
"even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD."
Ezekiel 14:14 and the immediate context; see also Ezekiel 14:19-21
mentioning Job again.
Also from James in the New Testament:
"Brothers and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy."
James 5:10-11
Of course I believe Job was a historical person and what happened took place, even if the number of sons and daughters may have been symbolic to say that he had numerous sons and daughters both times. I accept it literally, but numbers in Scripture as in the Ancienct Near East are often rounded off to a symbollic number about true historical events.
But let's say for the sake of discussion here Job is not historical (though Job is). What good is the book at all if it's truly not depicting God's ways with us? It's of no value at all, then. Yes there was this encounter with Satan. Yes, God used Satan. "God is so big that the enemy serves his purposes. We're in the realm of mystery here." (from our Pastor Sharon last week).
Maalie,
There is give and take with God in Scripture. God is big enough that he doesn't have to be in control of everything to be in control.
That was a nice follow up Ted. I appreciate you pointing those out. Very helpful. It really does nail it down that Job was a child of the Lord.
"What? In order to learn that a man survived in the guts of a fish for a week? No thank you Donsands, NO Sir-ee!"
Let's see. From my perspective of the truth, Jesus of Nazareth was a man who lived and died. That's a fact. And Dr. Luke tells us that this man, Jesus, rose from the dead. Another fact.
And so, Jesus said, "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here." -Matthew, the ex-taxcollector, and another man who saw Jesus after He died and rose.
>this man, Jesus, rose from the dead. Another fact..
Wrong. That what is reported in a 2002 year old out of date and discredited book. Animals (human or otherwise) do not come back to life once they are dead. Fact.
"discredited book."? Maalie
"The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is also dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's "History" (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' "History" (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).
Homer's "Iliad", the most renowned book of ancient Greece, has 643 copies of manuscript support. In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the New Testament manuscripts (Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986, p. 367). In fact, many people are unaware that each of William Shakespeare's 37 plays (written in the 1600's) have gaps in the surviving manuscripts, forcing scholars to "fill in the blanks." This pales in textual comparison with the over 5,300 copies and fragments of the New Testament that, together, assure us that nothing's been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers in the second and third centuries. (A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24.)"
Donsands: I am not disputing the fact that it was written. I am asserting that it isn't all literallytrue.
No way did a single man (and his cloned partner) contain all the genetic information in his chromosomes to produce the genetic diversity the we find in human diversity today. Fact.
you find it impossible to believe, Maalie, because you serve a very small god.
everyone worships something or someone - and that becomes god to them. idols are small and weak, whether they are the carved variety of the human variety.
confusing manmade gods with the One True God will always make it hard to understand even the mearest inkling of the power God has. All conclusions based on an idea of God as less than He is will always leave man doubting. All true knowledge of the Living God will leave man on his knees in worship.
>Maalie, because you serve a very small god.
Eh? Please could you remind me which one this is?
Onre true god? But all faiths consider 'their god' to be the one true god.
What I mean is that I think we all serve very small gods when we serve anything - ourselves, money, other people, worldy success, fame, scientific discovery - anything besides Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Blessed Sabbath to you all.
You know, I was just sitting here looking at the beautiful sunshine filtering through the maple tree in my yard and thinking.
What came to mind is this notion of "election" - and knowing about it. 1John1:5 came to mind, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."
I'm not sure that you can "know" that you are "elect" until after you actually are a believer in the Son of God. No one knows until after they become, as scripture says, "a new creation" and the Holy Spirit dwells in you because it is He that assures you that you are.
God is such a gracious God; He provides salvation through Jesus the Christ, but He only offers it that way. He does not force anyone to accept it. And before you can do that, you must first believe, as it says in Hebrews, that God not only exisits but He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Seek Him diligently today so that He may be found by you.
God doesn't force, or make an unbeliever take His forgiveness in Christ, is what I believe as well.
But the Scriptures teach that Christ seeks and saves His lost sheep. He leaves the 99 behind to go and bring that one lost sheep into His fold.
And to bring this sheep back may take some time, and some dragging as well, however Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws [helkuo: to drag] him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
And He said:
"“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”"
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all work together to bring lost sinners into the blessed kingdom of righteousness and love.
Why He would bother, I'll never know.
I think Maalie's small god is his Marsh Tits!
>I think Maalie's small god is his Marsh Tits!
Not far out Lorenzo. I would extend that to the natural world in general. Who would turn down a bottle of Glenmorangie at the Winter Solstice?
Is that a beer, Maalie?
Right now I think a nap is more in order than a beer!
Best Scottish single malt whisky!
Ted: I've never heard that Obama is literate in and influenced by Reinhold Niebuhr. Where did you learn that? And what effects do you see of his "Christian Realism" and critiques of human nature in Obama's policies?
Andrew,
Yes. This is the link I know of at the moment. You can find the transcript on that site as well, so that you don't have to take the time to download and listen to it. I just found this article from David Brooks, as well.
I am woefully behind and have not kept up well on what has happened during Obama's administration, only getting a general drift while catching this and that. So I am trying to slowly pace myself so as to more or less catch up.
Obama has been said to not expect any utopia, and he certainly holds to much of what I understand of Reinhold Niebuhr, but my understanding of Niebuhr is all too lacking as well, except that I believe I get the general drift of him (actually I'm now reading John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" which so far bumps into Niebuhr's thought, so I should learn more on him, and I really want to). Actually a good Baptist theologian today who reminds me of Niebuhr, but is solid in his commitment to Scripture is John Stackhouse (an interesting book related to this: Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World). I think Niebuhr in his own mind was solid in being committed to Scripture, but he put too much stock in a natural theology to understand ethical concerns, arguably and inadvertently undermining the teaching of Jesus and the direct bearing the New Testament has on ethics.
My understanding on how this affects Obama is that he is a pragmatist as a realist, has a humility about ideology, and believes that no matter what might be accomplished for good to solve one problem, there will always be the next problem to resolve. Realism and original sin, to the forefront in Niebuhr's thought, seeming to be significant in Obama's as well.
I think I could say more on that, and could add my own opinions as to how this works out in his policies thus far from what little I know and would guess, but I'll leave it at that.
Maalie - there's a scripture in 1Cor 10:13 I think that addresses the situation very well. It says that no temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man. That tells me that what you have gone through in the last year is not unique to you but actually a common experience that is faced by many people. The deceptive part is that what has occurred feels so unique, so special or so horrible, that no one else could possibly understand it, not even God. This sense of uniqueness serves to isolate us, to remove us from reality; it allows us to justify what has happened as something that must somehow fall outside the norms of behavior or even normal experience and that very sense of uniqueness and isolation deceives us. It is a hungry child reaching out for the sweet smelling chemical under the sink and drinking it, thinking it satisfies his thirst when really it is a silent poison to his kidney. But, it is a choice based on lack of understanding and in many cases, it represents a lack of understanding of the true character of God - we choose substitutes that seem right when all along the real thing was waiting for us - we just didn't wait long enough to find out.
I think the more important question that will/should you reject what has come into your life is whether or not you will reject the God who is there, the one who made a way for you to be His personal friend through Jesus the Christ.
Grace and peace my dear Maalie.
Post a Comment