Christian Chat – Worthy Chat Blogs » Omegaman

In Worthychat, there are often passionate debates that arise out of the differences between what are broadly assumed to be conservative and liberal values. The terms are not easy to define, and I suspect each person has his/her own idea of what the terms mean. I will not attemp to define them, because of those reasons. What I will attempt to do, is to communicate the values and beliefs through which I filter competing social and political ideas and problems. For example:

I beleive that God has called me to love my neighbor. This means to me, that I am to seek his well being, treat him in a way that gives him help, helps him help himself, things along that line. Most who would call themselves liberals, would aggree with this ideal I beleive.

I believe that God has called me to provide a living for myself, and to support my family, in other words I have personal responsibilities to try not to require help from others – this is another form of loving my neighbor – self sufficiency, rather than burdening others.

I believe that God expects me to raise my children in the best ways, training them to be Godly and to also love their neighbors.

I believe that I have responsibilities to try to make the world a better place. That means to me, that I need to try to be part of a solution, and less of a problem. This translated into decisions that I make regarding voting issues, volunteerism, charity and countless other oportunities to affect peoples lives in a positive way, in the family, in the church, in the neighborhood, in the world at large.

I doubt many who name themselves liberals, would disagree much with my goal and principles to this point.

However, where they often do disagree, is how best to accomplish these ideals.

So, where do I part company with liberals philosophically? I will answer that, but please keep in mind, that I will be using generalities, there may well be many liberals who do not think that they are as I am going to discribe them, if you are a liberal, or a conservative, do not think that I am talking about you, I am talking about my perception of liberals and conservative in the U.S., the country in which I live and with which I am most familiar.

In my observation, there are some fundamental differances in the way the conservative mind and the liberal mind think. I am not going to say that one is superior to the other, but here is my attemp to explain what I see as differences in general.

The conservative thinks more in terms of individual responsibility, he/she sees obligation to act on a personal level, while the liberal tends to think in terms of what government should do to help people. That is probably not going to go unchallenged here, but it is what I beleive. Perhaps it would be good to give an example to illustrate my contention.

A conservative is likely to want to see government welfare programs reformed, reduced, or possibly elliminated. He believes that charity, is the job of individuals and charitable orgnizations. He will not generally approve of government attempts at charity, because he realizes that they have not demonstrated themselve to be efficient (only allowing 30 cents of every dollar spent to reach the beneficiary), are fraught with fraud, lack accountability, and get their funding by confiscating money from those who have it.  He believes it is better to to have people giving willingly out of love or compassion, than to have his elected officials deciding for him the best way to accomplish charity.

By contrast, a liberal is likely to assume that need is so great, that volunteerism will be insufficient to meet people’s needs, that those who have money, will not be generous enough to cover the needs of the needy, so therefore we need government to step in, take money from some individuals to give it to others.

I have a theory about why liberals have so little faith in voluntary charity.  Liberals are not going to like it though, but please, this is about generalities, not any individual

My theory is this. We see the world through the prism of our own world views, and that creates a kind of predjudice.  If we do not give much of our own substance away, we are likely to conclude that many or most others, are like us. Therefore, if we are not giving much, probably others are not giving much either. Is this a theory that I can prove?  No, not in the slightest. However, what can be demonstrated, is that in general, conservatives give more away than liberals. Now some will be thinking, that is not true, conservatives are likely to be more careful with their money, wealthier also, and there fore either the conservative will be stingy, or he is only giving more because he can easily affort it.

That notion is, of course, also a theory. However, there are massive amounts of data available to show that conservatives give more, regardless of their economic level. Poor conservatives give more than poor liberals, rich conservatives gove more that rich liberals. Now, I can hear someone thinking, that that may be true, but conservatives are more likely to be religious, so that explains that. I am happy to inform you however, that non religious conservatives still give more, and that those who attend church, and give there, are also more likely to give more in addition to that giving, even to non religious causes. The fact is, conservative on the whole, are more compassionate in deeds, than liberals are in the United States at least.

As a side note, the citizens of the United State pay for many types of government programs through their tax system which have goals to help those in need; I am pleased to state  they also manage to give away voluntarily, enough of their assets to charity, to amound to 8% of their gross domestic product, about 1 trillion dollar of charitible giving per year. I would like you to think about that number. It means that the average American, gives over $3000 to charitable causes each year, in addition to what is taken from him/her through taxation for similar purposes. Min you, that number is an average, taking into account every man, woman, child, and baby. If we adjusted those numbers to reflect only those people with assets and income, we would see that those who are able to give, do so generously without the goverment forcing them to do so.  I am sure this is true for many other countries as well. Is this related to conservatism? I have no way of knowing, but when American are polled about the values they believe in and hold, America turns out to mostly moderate to conservative, with a little over 20% being categorized as liberals. While Americals political leadership tends to be to the left, it’s citizens tend to be to the right.

I believe that both liberals and conservatives are true to their world view.  Conservatives beleive in individual giving, and do so, while liberals believe that charity is largely a government responsibility, and consider that they have given already through taxes, and of course that is true.  The difference is, that thr conservative is more likely to  ”give” both ways.

Now, I do not have an answer to the question of what motivates a conservative to give more. When one considers that it is not religiousity, or income level, I am at a loss to explain it.  However, I am happy to dismiss the stereotype that liberals are more compassionate, the facts do not seem to bear that out under examination.

I would like to point out another idea that ties in with this. Four times in U.S. History, that I am aware of, income taxes have been reduced. Liberals feared that this would result in a loss of income to the federal government, and that programs would have to be cut. In each of the four times, when taxes where cut, the governments revenue increased. How is this possible? It is not only possible, it is predictable. When you cut taxes on businesses, businesses have more money to invest in growth, give raises, hire new people etc. When a business buys more equipment, supplies, and raw materials, some one else who sold these items, is making more money. When some one makes more money from those investments, or from getting a raise or a new job, that new money becomes part of an income base, that is in turn taxed, producing more money for the government while at the same time, reducing the governments outlay for welware programs, unemployment insurance benefits, and the like. Also, there is probably another factor at work, the less abused a person feels by the tax system, the more likely he is to pay his taxes, instead of finding ways to cheat or to “loophole” his way out of them.

Lower taxes are one of those rare things, where everybody wins. So why don’t we lower taxes and keep them lower? Ask liberal politicians that question. It is hard to figure out to be sure. Historically in the U.S., it has been conservatives that fight the for reducing taxes and slowing tax growth. I can think of no good reason to burden people with more taxes in order to grow the government in ways that are not necessary, or to fund more inefficient programs that the private sector can handle. Now, while lowering taxes provides more jobs and higher incomes and more revenue to the governmet, there is another side effect that is worth noting. When people’s net income goes up, charitable income goes up also.

Now, with these things all in mind, which is more loving of these two models:

More jobs, more income, more money for govt programs, more charitable giving

or

less jobs, less income, less money for govt programs and less charitable giving?

There is no rocket science here, conservatism is more compassionate in practice, than liberalism is. I could go on with scores of other examples. Liberals who are passionate, could respond with their counterpoints, but I see no benefit in dragging this out to that degree. Instead, I want to bring this to a conclusion to what I think the real problem is, one which I cannot fix, but one which any individual can, in his or her own life.

Liberals are truly compassionate people at the heart level, where God looks. So I am not going to call into question their devotion to God or good intentions. But as I see it, the liberal tends to think with his heart, he feels his way to decisions. He believes that government can be a good force to help people, and that therefore, more government equals more help. The reasoning is not too bad, it all sounds logical and feels right.

By contrast, the conservative analyzes results, he observes that government is too often in the way of helping people, it lowers the standard of living in many ways, lowering the quality of live and the ability to help others. The conservative is not usually ready to try bold new ideas without a lot of examination and forethought as to consequences. Where the liberal sees the world through eyes that examine the way things ought to be, the conservate examines the world through an examination of what works and what doesn’t. Now, I know many will take exception with that analysis, and I admit that I cannot see into the minds of others to see how they tick. But with a world of evidence around us, and that information being more available than ever, it is not hard to find out what works and what does not, what has succeeded and what has failed.

Liberalism has sought to take from the rich and give to the poor, yet in spite of the fact that liberals are more often in control of the country than conservatives, one can reasonable wonder, why has the number of poor people not been reduced or elliminated by now. We have been growing income taxes for over 100 years in the U.S. We have created more social welfare programs than one can shake a stick at over the last 70 years, yet the ratio of poor people to not poor people has not improved, what we have received for those efforts, is a large group of individuals who feel entitled to be provided for, instead of feeling the need to improve their own condition. But it is worse than that.

In one sector our population, our poor black communities to be specific, we have managed to convert a people who were once very family oriented, to a subculture of people where 9 out of 10 black children are born out of wedlock, many of whom have no idea who there daddy is, because they cannot ever remember seeing him. Our government pays the mother money, to help support her child, but pays her more if she does not have a man living in the house, so we have rewarded women by paying them more to have dad gone. Is there something wrong with this picture? We also pay them more money, the more cildren they have.  It then becomes nearly impossible, for these women, to ever get off welfare, because too often they are undereducated, and if they could find a job, it would likely pay less than the goverment check. This then, becomes a way off life, often for multiple genrations in these families. No, lest someone accuse me of racial stereotyping here, I will quickly point out, that  more white people are on welfare, than black people are. I am just using this example to point out how devestating welfare programs have been to some of our minority communities, the communities that many liberals with their well intentioned hearts, claim to want to help. 

Speaking of blacks, I wish I knew more of them, the few that I do know cannot explain their allegiance to the Democratic Party. This question though, is more about party allegiance than conservative/liberal ideology. For those who are not aware, in the U.S. we have two major political parties, and dozens of minor ones. The Democratic Party, is largely liberal, while the Republican Party, is largely conservative, though only slightly at times. The Democratic party and the Whig party, were the major parties a bit prior to our civil war. It was the Republican Party, that opposed slavery and won freedom for slaves. In the early civil rights movement, Republicans by ratio, outnumbered Democrats in inacting civil rights reforms. The Democrats, for the most part, have created a welfare situation which has kept many black people who would rather work, dependant on the welfare system, penalyzing them if they try to better their position in life through personal effort for financial gain. Is it any wonder that drugs and prostitution is big business in these areas, since they seem to be the only way many see to make decent incomes without being worse off employed, than if on welfare?

 We have a very Racial focused ‘hate group’ in America, thankfully it is not very large. You may have heard of them, they are called the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Most of them, profess to be Democrats. Senator Robert Byrd, sometimes referred to as the conscience of the Democratic part, was at one time a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. That Blacks show special allegiance to the Democratic Party, baffles me. Just a random thought.

I am beginning to realize that I could continue in this vein for perhaps days, because the number of problems that liberals have helped bring about through their good intentions is staggering, the current economic crises comes to mind. Their opposition to solving problems with solutions that actually help, is mind blowing.

Where does the common notion come from, that the rich are greedy and made there money off the backs of the poor? Or that corporations are only out to cheat, steal, and destroy the environment. You know the kinds of notions I am talking about here, I will ask you, are they more common among liberals or among conservatives?

Having anwsered that, would you like to be rich yourself, given the choice? How many times has a poor person offered you employment? Since most corporations are owned by the stock holders, don’t the officers of a company have an obligation to try to make the company profitable. Almost half of American houshold own shares of stock, if companies where not “so greedy” many of these stock portfolios would not perform as well as a savings account, and savings accounts lose value in terms of buying power, every year.

Do you really beleive that some lawyer or a person who has never held a normal job or run a business, is the best sort of person to put in charge of running our lives? Why do we keep electing them? That is not a liberal/conservative question, that is for everyone.

If I continue, I am going to work myself into a state where I think my country is no good. I have focused here on a lot of problems that I see, but the truth is, that we have it pretty good, I just want to keep it that way – that is what conservatism is, “if it aint broke, don’t fix it”!

I apologize if that all seemed less than coherant. I know I went off topic a few times. This was not some well thought out thesis, this was just me rambling and ranting. I hope that at least one of three things happend while reading this. I hope that you at least saw your own thoughts crystalized, or, that you thought “Hmm, that is interesting, I never thought of it like that”, or that you got good and mad and feel motivated to prove me wrong. If your responce is a complacent yawn, I apologize for taking your time, maybe you can go find some professional wrestling on tv to watch, or maybe a good sitcom to stimulate your mind. Enjoy!

I realize, that if you think of yourself as a liberal, that you may feel that I have attacked you. Please do not! I know your intentions are good, I would just like you to rethink your ideas and examine if they are producing the good results that you expect. If not, why not look at the world of ideas out there, and find solutions that are working, and join in with them, and not feel an obligation so side with any group by label. This is for all people, all parties and philosphies. Any solution proposed by any group, party, or individual, which does not work, is not a solution, and does not need to be grown. Such ’solutions’ need to be modfied or replaced. The world is not perfect, and problems are complex, therefore no simple solution will likely be perfect or capable of wholly fixing  a complex problem, but we can chose the better solutions, and we should.  Do your best to do your homework, and think things through.

Omegaman 2.0

Comments are welcomed

Omegaman 2.0

How to fix the healthcare system is the topic of a debate which has existed for decades in the U.S. There are many who favor a nationalized (another word for socialism) healthcare plan, out current president,  Barack Obama, made a campaign promise to sign legislation, that would reform the healthcare system, before the end of his first term in office.  Mr. Obama is, as this is being written, pushing hard to get this type of reform passed, in his first year in office.
Almost unbelievably, he has not read the details of this plan, not has anyone in congress, it is thousands of pages and they were being pressured to vote for it before it was even placed into their hands for examination.
I cannot comment in any detail on this plan, because, of course, I have not read it either.
What I can do, however, is examine some of the reason that people say show the need to reform the system, some of the general ideas how to, offer some observations and some criticisms, which I consider to be constructive, plus toss in some other ideas that do not get talked about much.
I am not an expert in medicine, economics, politics, or any fields related to this issue, but I have examined the topic over the years for over two decades. As you read this, please pay attention to the facts that I present, because facts are not opinions, however, also be aware, that though I am presenting facts here, the conclusions that I draw, are largely my opinion.
I have to say at the outset, that there is and can be, no perfect system.  Any system settled upon with have it’s shortcomings, and there will always be those who will feel that something is inadequate or unfair.
The proponents of a nationalized healthcare system, often point to the fact that many countries (the United Kingdom and Canada are cited most often) already have a nationalized system in place which works, and the people in those countries pay less for their healthcare, than we in the United States do. Indeed, I have talked with people in those countries who like their system, and are amazed that the United States, is so far behind them in this respect. They will often say thinks like “It is almost a crime, that a modern and wealthy country like the United States, does not even provide basic healthcare for it’s citizens”. The also often refer to their system as providing free healthcare.
It is true that healthcare is expensive in the United States, we spend more on healthcare, per capita, than any country in the world. However, it is not true that the other countries provide free health care. It is true, that for some, the poorest of their citizens, that healthcare is free, but that is not true that it is free for everyone. They tell you that the healthcare is provided by the government, but conveniently do not notice that they are paying the taxes, which pay for the healthcare, so, it is in no way free. It is not provided by the government, it is only managed by the government.
There are many reasons why healthcare in the United States is expensive. One of them is the high premiums that healthcare providers must may for insurance to protect them from malpractice lawsuits. If we were to put in place some tort reform measures, limiting the size of awards or instituting loser pay systems, perhaps limiting the amount that the attorneys collect to a cost basis, instead of a percentage of the award, measures like these would lower insurance cost, and by extension, lower the costs passed on the the medical customer.
Another reason that healthcare is expensive in the United States, is that we spend lots of money on researching new medical procedures, new equipment development, and research into new medications. This progressive approach, costs a lot of money, and, it is also one reason why other countries get their medical care less expensively, because they benefit from the research done in the United States.  The reason that so much research and advancement occurs here, far more than in other countries, is because our medical industry is based on private free enterprise. In free enterprise, companies compete against each other, to garner a larger share of profits to be had in this market. If we were to move more and more towared a less profitable model, we will see advancements in medicine, slow down.

Yet another reason for our expensive medical care, is medical insurance and government programs. Why would that be the case? Two reasons.  One, whenever an insurance company or government entity is involved, there is a lot of paper work to be done. This paper work means that additional personel have to be hired to process the paperwork. This cost is reflected in the cost of care. Another problem that accompanies government and insurance provide care, is fraud. There are always those who will scheme to jack up the costs, or even bill for services that are never provided, sometimes for patients that do not even exist.

There is yet another reason that healthcare costs go up with a government or insurance system. When people feel that they will not be charged anything if the visit the physician, they are more likely to go to the physician, for minor maladies like the common cold.
As anecdotal evidence of how much money is saved when one pays for ones medical cost out of pocket at the time of need, I have recently had some medical expenses to deal with, as an uninsured and unemployed person who pays for his own expenses directly.
In the last year, my three daughters needed dental extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Our usual local dentist recommended an oral surgeon. We called the office after he received the xrays, to discuss what these procedures would cost. The bill for the three girls, would be about $4500 dollars. That was a bit out of my price range. A few phone calls to lok for alternative solutions, and we ended up a a univeristy dental school, the bill there was $946 dollars, a savings of $3554, or almost 80%. If medical customers price shopped this way, medical intitutions would have to consider how to lower costs in order to attract business.
I went in for a checkup, and they were going to bill my insurance company $75, until I told them that I had no insurance, and I would pay cash, they lowered the bill to $37.
One of our daughters need to get a physical to go to a camp to volunteer, she shopped on the telephone, and found a clinic that gave her the physical fo $29.
What is the point? If Americans took more responsibility for their healthcare, instead of relying on work provided or government provided care, they would drive the overall cost of care down, through competition.
So, what else drives health care costs up? Quality of care does. Americans want a high standard of care, and they get it. While many may think that the quality of care is not good enough, the fact is that when you compare the outcome for specific maladies in the United States as compared with the rest of the world, we outperform other countries. Of people diagnosed with cancer, pneumonia, Aids, heart disease and others, the U.S. enjoys the longest survival after diagnoses of all countries. So, while we pay more here, we get more also.
If the U.S. adopts the sytems of other countries, and it ends up that our system works on a par with them, we will find, that we have to wait longer for appointments and treatments, sometimes months for life threating conditions. We will find our survivability rate lowered. There is a reason that patients for the U.K. and Canada come here for treatment, and that is because their own countries either deny it, or delay it dangerously. If the U.S. has such a system then, not only will our healt be in danger, but people in those other countries, will lose the option of having the safety of the backup system, that America now provides. These countries that many want us to copy, are living with the shortcomings of thier systems, and their newspapers have chronicled hundreds of hooro stories that result from their systems. Now, they are recognizing that they need to reform their systems, and work toward a more profit driven system.
People sometimes fail to consider, that the U.S. already has nationlized healthcare systems. Interview anyone who is stuck with the Vetarans Administration health care, or Medicare, or Medical, or the health care provided on Indian Reservations, and find out if they think the care is as good as outside the government system.

I have left a lot unsaid here, that is intentional. We can have healthcare reform, we can improve the system, without going to the nationalized system. We can be creative and make new models to help lower costs and improve quality, as well as make it more available, but we will have to get out of the idea that it is either the present system, or nationalize. The key to improvment, is more choices, competing, not limiting ourself to a government run system. Think about it, do you really want your healthcare controlled and decided by government beaurocrats, or are those decisions best left in the hands of the experts (healthcare professionals) and the patient (you)?

What do the people think?

Worthychat Administrator Blogs – A Guide

I created this page for the purpose of making the blogs easier to use. If this is your first time visiting the blogs, you might be curious about what they are all about, so let’s start there.

The blogs were originally intended to give the Chat Administrators a place to record some of their thoughts, in the hopes that chatters could get to know us better, and more quickly. What the admins write about, is their choice, it could be about some personal experiences, or thoughts they have, or commentary on world events or results of personal Bible study, you never know what you will find here.

That last thought, is my main purpose on this page – making it easier to discover what exactly it is that you will find here, a table of contents, so to speak. I will get to that later.

For now, I want to tell you what to expect as you enter the blogs. As I said, the chat admins have the opportunity to maintain a blog in this area of Worthy. So do so, most do not. If you are a chat admin and want to blog here, send me a message and we will get you set up. For the rest of you, you can not blog here, but you can read the blogs of the admins, and comment on them at the end, if the author has enabled comments, most do.

When you read a blog there will be the words “no comments” or “add comments” or an areas saying how many comments exist. Clicking that, will bring you to the comment area. Also, at the bottom of the blog article, there is a “leave a reply function” – same thing. If you elect to comment, there is one thing you should know before you spent a lot of time typing out a response. Your comments are screened before they will show up.

Now, there isn’t a formal list of do’s and don’t on comments, but here are some guidelines if you want your comment approved.

1 . No Spamming. This means if you attempt to promote something, most likely it will not be approved. This is true whether it is blatant or stealthy. For example, if you were to say:

“Like I point out on my website, www.nothinghere.google.com, yada yada yada” , your comment might not be approved. Same can go for mentioning a book title, or a product etc. It is up to the discretion of the person approving or denying comments, but leave references to such things out, to assure success.

2. Promotion or even mentioning of “wild ideas, conspiracy theories, or asserting doctrine that can not be demonstrated by scripture, will likely get you comment blocked, unless it adds something meaningful to the topic, as judged by the administrator reviewing the comments.

3. Inclusion of swear words, intentionally mean or threatening language, or failure to show the proper respect to any person, will likely get your message blocked.

4. If your comment is not about the topic, it might be blocked. A comment like “Hi, I am new here, this is a nice website”, will not be posted because it has no relevance to the topic or the author of the topic. However, a comment like “Thanks for the thoughtful article” will probably be included because it encourages the author to write more blogs.

Comments are the only way we have of knowing that anyone is reading these blogs. If the admins are under the impression that few are reading the blogs, most likely the blogs will be few and far between. If you do not see your comment post on the site, and you followed the above guidelines – be patient, it can take some time for the comment to be read an approved.

O.K. Now, for the table of contents. This will be an ongoing work, and at times may be out of date, not showing the most recent blog installments. Even now, that is a problem, as I am out of time, but, I will return to create the contents, with links to the articles, and a short description of them.

Patience, is a fruit of the Spirit

Hello,

This is not the type of thing I would normally blog on, but there seems to be a fair amount of chatter and mis-information about the new flu strain, happening in the chat rooms at worthychat. So, I have decided to put this information here, in order to have it readily available when the topic comes up.

Well, there are some things that people should consider before going nut or getting panicky. First of, this is not a pandemic at this time, it is pre-pandemic, and perhaps will be pandemic . . .

However, we have pandemics from time to time, and they are not always scary things, but they are cause for concern.

Here is what I think people should keep in mind as they hear the stories of death, that will likely happen . . .

Reagular seasonal flu, that we are all familiar with, causes deaths aslo. In the United States, we typically have 36,000 deaths a year from seasonal flu, with no less that 800 deaths each week since the beginning of this year EACH WEEK.

World wide, the estimates run from 1/4 million to 1/2 a million deaths from regular flu each year. Keep those numbers in mind as you here the numbers from this new strain of flu that is making the headlines. I think the spread of fear through the internet, is way more unusual than the spread of flu from person to person.

I do not know about other parts of the world, but in the states, 90% of flu deaths occur in people over 65 years of age.

So, so far, this new strain of flu is spreading quickly, but it has not demonstrated itself to be any more dangerous that regular seasonal flu at this time, but being a new stain, we do knot know alot about the strain yet, and since it is not flu season, se also do not know if it will become worse when flu season arrives, or whether infections will taper off, we basically just don’t have enough infomation on this particular flu to make intelligent projections, butwe also do not kno enough to panic over it either.

Information provided believed accurate as of April 30, 2009

Information derived from CNN, Center for Disease Control, and pandemicflu.gov website

BTW 109 cases of this so far in the U.S. with 1 death to date – that being in the state of Texas

Following is an archive of  a Bible study I gave in Worthychat on 4/15/2006. Especially relevant as we meditate on the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord.

Not a lot of preface to this one. Let’s just say it reveals God’s inpiration of the scriptures, and demonstrates the value of careful study. I call it FlashBack to the Future.

Matthew does not give us a very detailed description of the crucifixion. Jesus said a
number of things from the cross, among them, the following, as reported by Luke:

“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise .”

Luke 23:46

“Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit.” And having said this, He breathed
His last.

You are probably familiar with these sayings, and their contexts. I am assuming that Matthew, had a reason for leaving these sayings out, he surely was aware of them, or perhaps God had a reason for Matthew omitting them.  So, what reason could Matthew have for focusing on the saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani”? Could it be that there is something here, that is more important, of a differing importance? Is Jesus, in crying out, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” experiencing a moment of doubt? Is His faith wavering? Does there seem to be an element of accusation in these words?

It is clear, from Jesus’ conversations with his disciples, that He fully understood His mission. He knew that He was to die, He knew it would be hard, and He knew it had to be done.  Jesus did not doubt, whatever does not come from faith, is sin, and Jesus never sinned:

Jesus was always a righteous man, He always lived by faith.

Jesus never sinned, so everything He did, He did not do in doubt. He was tempted, but never sinned.

We can see, that Jesus was not doubting at all, so why did He ask why God was forsaking Him?

I think the answer lies not in the content of what He was saying, but the source of the saying. I think also, you will see why Matthew thought this saying was uniquely important.

Time for a flashback:

Ps 22:1 says:

My God, my God , why hast Thou forsaken me?

Sound familiar? That is right, Jesus is quoting the words of a Psalm, why would He do that, why this psalm? When Jesus was crucified, He was crucified in Jerusalem, in the land of Israel, the homeland of the children of Abraham, God’s chosen people, the keepers of the written word of God. A Jew, on that day, might upon hearing those words, know the
source, that they came from this Psalm. The more learned ones, may even have been able to recall the context of the words and gone over them in their minds. If so, what would they recall?

7 All who see me sneer at me;

They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,

8 “Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him;

Compare the words above with those of Matthew:

39 And those passing by were hurling abuse at Him,
wagging their heads,

43 “He trusts in God; let Him deliver Him now,
if He takes pleasure in Him

See any similarities? Do you think it is possible, that some of those present, might
have noticed this? I think that is possible, even likely. Perhaps, some went home, deeply
troubled by the events that had just unfolded. They would never forget this. Perhaps some
would take the trouble to examine this Psalm, when they had the opportunity, What else
would they have seen?

13 They open wide their mouth at me,

As a ravening and a roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water,

And all my bones are out of joint;

My heart is like wax;

It is melted within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,

And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;

And Thou dost lay me in the dust of death.

16 For dogs have surrounded me;

A band of evildoers has encompassed me;

They pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones.

They look, they stare at me;

18 They divide my garments among them,

In the above passage, we see this person surrounded by strong aggressive men, snarling at Him, while He is poured out like water, His strength waning, his bones being pulled apart, heart is under stress, thirsting, and recognizing that He is about to die. While in this condition, the evil surround Him, having pierced His hands and feet. He can sense each of His bones in the agony, and while people are gawking at Him, those at His feet, gamble and divide His clothes.

I would like to think, that if I were a Jew at that time, having witnessed this spectacle, that when I read this passage in the Psalm, I would have said “Oh my God, I witnessed this that day. I was there, the words of this Psalm, were fulfilled in my presence”. I would hope, that I would have fallen to my knees, and begged for mercy. I suspect, that many did. I also suspect, that as Matthew’s gospel was spread, that there would be those who read it, who may also have been here that day, or been close to the events, who also would have had this reaction, I am confident, that those who were
permitted to realize the significance, would also have sought God’s forgiveness, and received it, as people have hrough the centuries since.

One from that time, would have seen something else in that Psalm:

28 For the kingdom is the Lord’s,

And He rules over the nations.

29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship,

All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him,

Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.

30 Posterity will serve Him;

It will be told of the LORD to the coming generation.

31 They will come and will declare His righteousness

To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.

Pictured in the above passage of that psalm, we see the prediction that the church, that is to say that the future believers, who are gentiles, will turn from their pagan gods to the one true God. Of course, this turning to the Lord, was accomplished because the Messiah died for all men, and the faithfulness of Jesus apostles, in spreading the good news, led to the adoption of the gentiles, into the family of God, making the promise to Abraham come to fullness.

It is my belief, that Jesus quoted this psalm, not in any doubt about His Father’s faithfulness, but was indeed making a powerful statement. It is as though He were saying, “look to the scriptures, you will see this, and you will know I AM He. ” We can look today, and see this is clearly a prophecy, and a fulfillment. I believe, that this was a sign to believers, to the faithful, that they should be reassured, that the Son of Man, was supposed to die, something they were not expecting to happen to the Messiah, when He came. Otherwise, when Jesus died, they might doubt, and look for another as Messiah. This was NOT a sign to convince the unbelievers, they were to get a different sign, one more powerful than this one.

In Luke 23:46, we saw Jesus breathe His last. Those close to Jesus, were in despair, devastated, disillusioned. Although Jesus told them, repeatedly that He would be soon dying, it  was not enough, they were ready to give up, and try to put this all behind them as if it was only a terrible nightmare. They didn’t understand some things that Jesus told them. So, they hurriedly put Jesus in a tomb, and went away in their grief. To mere men, the grave appears to be the end.  Jesus was no mere man. Remember I told you that the unbelievers would get a more powerful sign?

Jesus has here, predicted his death, burial and resurrection, and stated that this is the only sign He would give those included in the evil generation. We tend to think of a generation as a group of people born at approximately the same time. In Greek, is can mean that, or the age in which a generation lives, or a race of people. I have no idea which is implied here. The sign given to this generation, would be Jesus’ resurrection after being in the earth 3 days. What Jesus went on to say, I think is very powerful, that Ninevah, would stand up (Greek anasteésontai, from the same root word that we understand as resurrection) with this generation, and condemn it at the judgement, because they repented and mere preaching of a prophet, but this generation did not believe, when the Son of God was among them, fulfilling prophecies and performing miracles.

The resurrection is a powerful idea. All people have a common enemy, one that we cannot defeat. That enemy is death. People are born with a survival instinct. What people do not stop to consider, is that death is inevitable, and that the
answer to the issue of survival, is to be able to survive after death. How would one know, if that were possible? The only real evidence that would at all be convincing, would be for some one to die and return back to life from the dead. They could not die as in having ones heart stop for a few minutes, that is not convincing, but really dead, all life
functions gone, cold on a slab kind of dead. If I am going to listen to someone tell me that there is a life after death, I want his source of information to come from someone who has been there, that is authority.

Where did the power come from for this resurrection?

Father ?

Son

Holy Spirit ?

Amen to that, what a great verse! There we see the Spirit who raised Christ from the dead, also dwells in the believer, giving life to our mortal (temporary and subject to death) bodies. What does this mean to us? We started at the Crucifixion, and went backward to see a detailed prophecy concerning it, back forward again to the resurrection. We
stopped there to see a small detail about the power of and behind the resurrection. Since tomorrow is resurrection Sunday, you will hear plenty about the resurrection itself.
Now, it is time to go forward again to our present, to examine it’s significance to our lives today.

The resurrection is the very core of our belief as Christians.

It that passage Paul asserts that if the resurrection did not occur, then you are living your life in vain, with no chance of an afterlife, and, in fact, you are a liar about God and still lost in your sins. Not only is the fact of the resurrection necessary for for your afterlife, so is your belief in the resurrection:

This brings to life another important part of our walk, one that is ignored by too many, failure in this area, can never be justified if you are able. We need to confess not only for our own salvation, but we are to love others, as a responsibility to God, a small thing which He expects from us. Evangelism. Many do not do this, because they are shy,
unconfident, not used to being pushy, or any number of other reasons. If God asks this of you, on what basis can you possibly refuse? We are told to love others as God also loved us. He loved us enough to die for us, but many of us, do not love Him enough to tell others about Him. Instead of loving our neighbors, we demonstrate contempt for them. By
not telling them of our Savior, we are in effect saying, that we would rather have them spend eternity in torment, than for us to be uncomfortable for a few moments. What could be more selfish? What is more important than a soul, for whom Jesus died? It boggles the mind, that the church treats others this way. Yes, I am guilty too.

I put this part about evangelism for one simple reason. As I was researching the preparing for this study, I kept coming across evangelistic passages. It was not in my plan to include it, but I could not steer through the passages in a way that avoided it. So, I took the hint and decided that is was not to be avoided. Those passages are there to
be read and to be accepted. Just as it would be unloving to not tell someone about the Savior, it would be unloving of me, to not encourage you to spread the word. Evangelism, is what a good and faithful servant does above all else. Christ didn’t die, to hear more worship songs. He didn’t die, so institutions would have more money given. He did not die, so people would do acts of charity. He did not die, so people would study the Bible. He died to save the lost. He died for us, and for everyone whom we have not told about Him.

After you attend your next church sevice, if not before, I’d ask you to consider, what Christ did for
you. After meditating on that, ask yourself, “What am I willing to do for Him?”.
Finally, consider following through on your answer.

May God richly bless you as you follow the Son.

Postscript:

That was the end of the study. However, after I gave this study, two attendees asked me if I knew about the worm. ”

Know about the worm? What are you talking about?”

“You know, the worm in the psalm, the one where it says “I am a worm, and no man!”

They told be some things about some worm, which I found a bit unlikely, but being an investigator at heart, I looked into it. It was an interesting investigation. You can read it here. Again, just another evidence of the inspiration of scripture.

Is the Earth Old or Young ?

No answers here, but some things to think about.

I hear this question frequently, but I always wonder what is in the mind of the person asking the question. Is the answer to this question important, and if so, why and in what ways?

An unbeliever might like to pit the conclusions of modern scientists, who almost universally hold to the idea that the Earth is very old against the apparent assertions of the Bible that the Earth is relatively young. In other words, if the Bible says the Earth is young, and scientists say the Earth is ancient, then clearly the Bible is wrong and not to be believed.

A believer, on the other hand, might look at this problem and conclude, that the unbeliever has a point. Out of concern for the skepticism of the unbeliever, the believer might want to make it easier for the unbeliever to accept the Bible. Similarly, the believer may have his/her own doubts about this and so adopt the position, that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is that the Earth is old and in harmony with the consensus of scientists.

Personally, I believe the age of the Earth as it relates to an unbeliever is of little significance, and is usually either an excuse not to believe, or is a way of avoiding the important topic of the unbelievers salvation. As a believer addressing this issue with an unbeliever, I will point out that there are believers that hold both positions and that the real topic of concern is whether Jesus came to Earth, died for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the belief upon which our salvation rests, and any other topic pales in importance.

Therefore, I shall be addressing this topic from the stand point of the believer – what it means to us. Is it important what we believe? What should we believe?

What concerns me the most, is not what we believe in regards to this question so much as why we believe what we believe. A standard rule of biblical interpretation, is that we interpret the Bible literally, unless we are compelled to do otherwise. Some might make the case that the science is so compelling, that we have to interpret Genesis in some figurative way.

I have to ask, what is it, that makes the science so compelling? I am a scientifically minded person, I run much of my daily life depending on ideas which science has observed and proven. Obviously, science has proven to be a powerful and useful tool. However, I think that the most trustworthy part of science, is the part where we can observe current phenomena, develop theories about the phenomena, and test those theories. When we begin to attempt to apply science to metaphysics – the spiritual part of our universe, science has left it’s realm of expertise. Topic of an historical nature – the issues of the formation of the universe, the development of life etc, science has also strayed from it’s expertise because it is attempting to guess what has happened in the past, from clues in the present. Most of the time, this will be of questionable reliability, since there is no way to repeat history in a test tube. It is gone, and not subject to examination.

What it comes down to then, in my opinion, is: “What do you trust more, the pronouncements of a demonstrably infallible God, or the pronouncements of demonstrably fallible men?” Now, to be certain, we can make mistakes in our interpretation of the Bible, so both methods have a risk of error. Never-the-less, I believe that the Christian who maintains that the Bible teaches or allows for and ancient earth, is knowingly electing to disbelieve the most natural literal interpretation of the Bible, in favor of the theories of men, derived from the natural sciences. Personally, if I am wrong in my assessment that the Earth might be quite young, I would rather have the clear conscience of taking God at His word and be in error than choosing to trust the dictates of men that God pronounces to be fools for their unbelief of Him.

It is true that there are reputable scientists who believe in an old Earth and who profess to be Christians. I do not doubt that most of these men and women are saved, trusting Jesus for their salvation. I do find it very odd, however, that they are willing to trust God about the scientifically unlikely event of the His resurrection, upon which their salvation rests, but cannot find it within themselves, to take Him at His word with regards to issues of origins. In fact, I find it saddening.

As you have probably concluded, I am of a younger Earth persuasion. This is not to say that I believe that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C. as some assert. I note that the Bible never makes such a claim, and that this number is merely the result of calculations of a man who added up life spans and genealogies in the Bible. I have never checked his math, but in as much as the Jews were known to practice genealogies with gaps in them, recording more notable ancestors, it seems to me that there is some room for some extra time. In my estimation, all you can prove from the Bible about when the Earth was created, is that Adam, the first man, was created in 4004 B.C. or earlier. How much earlier, I have no idea. In other words, I do not believe the Bible makes any definitive statement on how old the Earth is. Having said that, can I prove there are gaps. Yes and no. The Bible as we know it, notes them itself, by comparing genealogies in some books versus others. In other words, different book describe ancestral lines with differing numbers of people in them. Therefore, some of these have to be incomplete, or else other have extra generations. If there are extras, then those passages are either untrue, or they are some sort of allegory. The do not appear to be allegory, so the most logical choice is that the others are not complete. If they are not complete, then we know that gaps were an allowable custom. Knowing that gaps are allowable, we can assume that all of the genealogies could contain gaps.

Now, a little known and underdiscussed fact is, that the Hebrew text from which the 4004 B.C. creation date comes, is the Masoretic text, the major text underlying the translations of modern Old Testaments. However, copies of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew, written some 300 years B.C. with extant copies going back to 400 A.D.) predates the Masoretic text by at least  350 years (the the oldest extant copy of the Masoretic text is Masoretic text dating to the 9th and 10th centuries A.D.) . Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Septuagint, so it is safe to assume it was thought reliable as the word of God. The geneologies of the Septuagint, if totaled in the same way that the 4004 B.C. Creation date was arrived at, push the creation date back to 5315 B.C. See how muddy and impossible it is to determine the date from the scripture?

To me then, the Bible allows for an undetermined age of the Earth, and mankind is at least 6000 years old (7300 if going by the Septuagint). Which brings us to the length of creation time passed before God made man.

The Old Earth Theorists, will have to hold to the idea that the 5 days prior to the creation of man, are not 5 literal days, but days which are of undetermined lengths of time, even millions of years each. This is done to force the scriptures to harmonize with scientific conclusions. That people may choose to interpret the Bible according to the dictates of predominantly atheistic scientists, is their own business. However, I think that it sets a very dangerous precedent, which allows for changing the meaning of the word of God, to suit whatever belief is in fashion. This is already being done in other portions of scripture. For example, science is looking to find a genetic causation for the behavior of homosexuality. If a link can be found to exist between heredity and sexual orientation, then what will follow is a discounting of the biblical notion that the practice homosexuality is a sin. Now, that leap will not be a logical one, but the leap will be made, never-the-less. I could cite other examples, but this one will serve to illustrate the point. The point is that even if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically caused, it still does not alter the fact that God calls it a sin to practice, just as He calls it a sin for heterosexuals to act their carnal desires outside of the man/woman marriage that He ordained.

For myself, I shall not ever use the temporary and ever-changing opinions of science to interpret the God inspired scriptures which never need adjustment, but that is just me. Many Old Earth Creationists are aware of the supremacy of God’s word, but just do not have enough faith in the most natural interpretation of scripture to overcome their faith in modern science. In such cases, I can understand that, but I wish more of them were honest about that fact that that is what the problem is. Sadly, many choose instead, to find that the traditional beliefs of Christianity are suspect an inferior.

It should not take any effort on my part, to convince anyone that the most natural interpretation of the creation days of genesis, is that they are 6 literal days. Nothing in the text suggests otherwise. Old earth creationists will go to great lengths to point out that the Hebrew word for day, does not always mean a literal, twenty-four hour day. They are absolutely correct on that point. This Hebrew word is “Yom”.

Gen 1:4-5

5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day. (NIV)

The first thing to notice about the word “day” as used in the creation account, is that it comes to us pre-defined. The light God called day. We do the same thing to this day. Also, one light and dark cycle, is also called a day. Just like we do. The implications of this one verse are a monumental obstacle, to anyone who wishes to maintain the notion that a day in Genesis, represents a length of time of thousands or millions of years. For one thing, we see here that in context, the word day is used identically as it is normally used in modern English. The internal, literary evidence therefore points to the conclusion that God intended this portion of scripture to be understood as literal, that a day is simply one cycle of light, most likely,  near 24 hours long. To assume that something else is intended, is a gross violation of rules of interpretation, not only of the Bible, but for any document.

Let’s suspend those rules momentarily, and allow for the idea that this day is, for example, not 24 hours, but one million years. Does this help Genesis square with modern scientific opinion? An interesting thing to note in the Genesis account, is that during this first day, the Sun has not yet been cause to shine upon the earth. The lightness and darkness that is cycling, is not sunlight. This gives some wiggle room because this light and dark, may not be dependant upon the rotation of the earth. We could say perhaps, that days were longer at that time. It get’s more difficult to maintain this notion though at creation day 4:

Gen 1:16-19

16 God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day. (NIV)

If these days are not 24 hours long, and we go back to the idea that a day is one million years long, might it be that the light was on for 500,000 years during a light/dark cycle. Since the old Earth theory is done to accommodate scientific opinion, then we should be consistent and assess the implication of 500,000 years of light. Is this light of similar intensity to what we experience from the Sun? If so, what would the surface temperature of the Earth rise to? Would the plants (created on the third day) survive the temperatures? Could they survive 500,000 years of darkness and no photosyntheses? Interpreting the scriptures to accommodate scientific consensus, causes more problems that it solves.

We have seen that interpreting Genesis passage literally, makes the most sense from a literary perspective. We have seen that interpreting it in the light of science, makes the text into nonsense. What about this word Yom we touched on briefly, is there a reason to expect that it might mean other than 24 hours in the original Hebrew?

My Bible software reports that this word Yom occurs 2304 times in the Old Testament. That should be plenty of data to work with, to discover the likelyhood that Yom should be understood as some sort of age. How many times is Yom not 24 hours in the Bible?

Here are examples of how it is used otherwise:

The span of human life. – Gen 5:4: “And the days of Adam …. were eight hundred years.” “And if thou wilt walk …. then I will lengthen thy days” (1 Kings 3:14; compare Ps 90:12; Isa 38:5).

(2) An indefinite time. – Existence in general: Gen 3:14: “All the days of thy life” (compare Gen 21:34; Num 9:19; Josh 22:3; Luke 1:24; Acts 21:10).

(3) A set time. – Gen 25:24: “And when her days …. were fulfilled”; Dan 12:13: “Thou shalt stand in thy lot, at the end of the days” (compare Lev 12:6; Dan 2:44).

(4) A historic period. – Gen 6:4: “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days”; Judg 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel” (compare 1 Sam 3:1; 1 Chron 5:17; Hos 2:13).

(5) Past time. – Ps 18:18: “the day of my calamity”; Ps 77:5: “I have considered the days of old” (of Mic 7:20; Mal 3:7; Matt 23:30).

(6) Future time. – Deut 31:14: “Thy days approach that thou must die”; Ps 72:7: “In his days shall ….” (compare Ezek 22:14; Joel 2:29; Matt 24:19; 2 Peter 3:3; Rev 9:6).

(7) The eternal. – In Dan 7:9,13, where God is called “the ancient of days.”

(8) A season of opportunity. – John 9:4: “We must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (compare Rom 13:12-13; 1 Thess 5:5-8). See DAY (4), above.

That was from the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Copyright (c)1996

See anything there that suggests eons? Most of those uses are less that a human lifespan. Some, are referances to historical periods – in other words AFTER the creation of man. The one possible exception, is number 7 above, but it is a reference to God Himself, not his creation. In short, to say that the word Yom contains the potential to represent millions of years, is forcing a definition or use of it, that is so extreme compared to actual uses of the word, that it can be considered as nothing other than a desperate grasping at straws by those that lack the faith to take God at His word. If any choose to believe the unstable opinions of the sciences over the revelation of God’s word, I am okay with that, I really am. I just wish they would have the honesty to state that they feel the need to abuse the science of hermeneutics to satisfy their own uneasiness about God’s word, instead of trying to convince others that it is somehow justified or legitimate to force personal beliefs upon the interpretation of scripture. To quote Prof. James Barr from the EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE: “If the word ‘day’ in this chapter does not mean the period of 24 hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.”.

Is the evidence too strong against the bible, or at least of a literal interpretation of it? Certainly if scientific consensus is going to be the determining factor concerning out faith and theology, we have to ask the question:

What about the resurrection. Scientific consensus would be that a man who dies, and remains dead for three days, stays dead. If God cannot defy the opinions of scientists, then no miracles happen, not now, not ever, and the resurrection never took place. If that is true, then Christianity is little more than a collection of interesting stories. If God is going to be limited to our understanding of the laws of nature, then why would we be wondering about the length of the creation period. A God without the power to do the miraculous, could not bring the creation into existence in the first place. If that creation did not happen, then why would we suspect that creation has an author at all, and without such and author, does sin really exist? Who gets to define what is sin and what is not, who decides how salvation is accomplished or if it is even necessary. Is there really even an afterlife? Apart from a revelation from a supernatural God, these things are all unknowable, and Christianity has no real value. It may not be critically important, how long creation took, but knowing that it took place, believing God by faith that it did, is important, and I have to wonder how much we really believe god, if we cannot trust Him to accurately describe and make plain, the details of His own creation.

Consider some of the implications of a lengthy creation. How does it affect other beliefs or statements from the bible? Do other passages make reference to the creation events – do we call them into question? Did Jesus or the apostles mention anything about the creation account that would leave you to believe that they took it literally – if so, how does that affect their credibility? If we can choose to ignore a literal interpretation in Genesis – do we then grant ourselves the same license in other parts of the Bible – if so, how will you know where and when?

These are questions each person must address and consider. While science has century by century, worked to discover how the universe works, each generation of scientists has seen major scientific opinions come and go. Each generation of scientists indeed, has at it’s disposal, new knowledge and new tools to investigate the natural world. Each generation has advanced the collective knowledge of mankind, and each has refuted theories held dearly by collegues of previous generations, and yet, after thousands of years, is still seeking answers to fundamental question, answers that are elusive.

Meanwhile, the Christian is able to hold the same views as Jesus and the apostles expressed 2000 years ago, with no need to apologize for any of them. The 20^th Century saw the sciences advance at a tremendous rate, but as theories about origins and cosmology became more refined and old once discarded as obsolete, we found that the theories of prevailing science, are looking more like the bible all the time. Of course, science cannot truly address origins and cosmology ultimately, because those things are outside of it’s scope of examination. Science works in the present, it examines present clues about past events. The past is not like electricity or chemisty, it cannot be replicated or examined directly. Science is even more at a disadvantage, to look into matters of a spiritual nature. Science examines natural phenomena, the supernatural is outside it’s pervue. Still, it is interesting to observe that scientists seem to be edging their way toward beliefs that the bible expressed all along. Considering that the bible is not intended to be a science text book, it is remarkable how many scientific facts it got right before scientists would discover them.

Election-day 2008 is just around the corner in the U.S. Our country is divided on many issues, and the issue of the day, can change month by month. People discuss who they will vote for, and why, or what party they are loyal to, things of that nature. Many people have hot button issues – for Christians – the pro-life / pro-choice is always one, gay marriage is a new hot-button. For everyone, the economy often takes the day, as the issue most important to most people, that seems to be the case this year as election-day nears.

One of our non-U.S. chatters was asking questions in chat the other night, trying to understand better, what is going on here in the U.S., and how did we get to this place of concern over our markets, economy, and the effects on the global economy. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I won’t bother giving any names of individuals or parties as to where to place the blame. That is not all that productive in this discussion, as it just tends to elevate passions, and that closes the mind. So I will try another approach.

Let’s talk about what we the people do to cause problems and solve problems. First thing to notice and admit, is that no one wanted this to happen, there are no bad guys here. There are only motives, actions and consequences.

I attempted to make the case in chat the other night, that we might be better off if we did not have a system where each person gets a vote, that it might be better to have voters who are qualified to vote, based on their command of the issues that confront us, instead of having a large group of people who are not knowledgeable, making the decisions that affect us all. My point or position was not well received.

We know as Christians, that God judges the heart. If I desire to help someone, and take steps to do so with pure motives, that pleases God. That is a spiritual angle to the elective process that we should all take, and we should not be so concerned with what policies affect us personally, as we should be for how those policies affect our neighbors.

We tend to like to classify people politically as conservative or liberal, or other words that mean the same thing as those words have come to mean. On that scale, I would have to describe myself as conservative. As a conservative, I personally want to thank those who tend to be liberal, who do so out of the belief that liberal policies are good things, things that help people. If that is where you find yourself, I commend you, if you are liberal because you want to help others. Your heart is in the right place, God looks upon the heart. If you are for liberal policies because of how you think those policies will benefit you, that is your right, but you will not hear me applauding that.

Same goes for conservatives. If you are a conservative for selfish reasons, no cheers for you, if you think conservative policies benefit others, then again you have my admiration, and God’s approval I think. Hopefully, wherever you are on the political spectrum, left wing, right wing, or middle of the bird, you are what you are for the love of God and your neighbor.

Let’s assume for the moment, that there are good people on both sides taking their positions for the right reasons. They cannot all be correct in their assessments, or they would all be in agreement. If we all are intending good, then what is going wrong?

I believe the answer to that lies in the different approaches that we use to view life. One person looks at life, and sees how things should be, how things should ideally work. The other person looks at life as how it is, and how things do work. The first is idealistic, the second pragmatic. One from the heart- feels how to vote, the other from the head-thinks how to vote. That is over simplified of course, but I think history will bear that analysis out as mostly true.

One is tempted to think that since God looks at the heart, then God approves of that approach more than the pragmatic approach. I think that is a mistake on a number of levels. An analytical pragmatic person may not be emotionally driven in his/her choices, but if they make those chances, they can be doing so with the same pure motives of hoping to benefit others.

In Matt. 25, Jesus tells a parable of the talents. While His primary point is not about using your resources wisely, that passage and others indicate that wise people do exactly that. In these times we have many resources. We are wealthy by the standards of the world and by the standards of history, though many of us do not feel that we are. Money is a real resource, which can be used for good or for evil. We have free time, because we have so many conveniences to make our life easier, our cars, our washing machines our stoves, you get the idea. If you are reading this, you have access to a computer and the internet, which is a great resource for information. If we have these resources, isn’t it our responsibility to use them for the advantage of our neighbor whom God has commanded us to love?

This is a long lead in to what I want to discuss, the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. There is a tremendous history of this law in action. Our current financial situation, to a large degree is upon us, because people wanted to make home ownership available to more people. The observation that our brown and black citizens (and other people with lower than average incomes) are under-represented as homeowners, led to the introduction of policies that made it easy for these people to get into houses that they could not afford. To most people, this is obvious now, but to anyone analyzing these policies, if was obvious from the beginning. What was intended to benefit a few people, had hurt a huge number of people.

The Americans with Disabilities Act – the ADA. Another good example of an idea with a big heart, hurting people. Business are forced to close down because they cannot afford to comply with ADA guidelines, opportunistic attorneys sueing companies for violations for no other reason that to fleece them of money, situations where medical care is less available to the disabled, because doctors are afraid to take cases which the ADA makes financial ruinous etc. People with disabilities now find it harder to find work since the creation of the ADA, as employers are frightened of the financial risks and burders that come with ADA compliance.

Minimum wage laws. There have been so many published studies by renowned economists on this, it is a wonder that minimum wage laws have not themselves been made illegal. Among economists, it is nearly unanimous that minimum wage laws hurt the ones they are intented to help. Many jobs which people have traditionally held, do not exist now, because  the wage cannot be justified by the work performed. When was the last time someone wiped your windshield (other than a homeless person) at a gasoline service station? The young and minorities are hurt the hardest by minimum wage laws. Unemployment of these individuals rises each time minimum wage laws are enacted.

Public education. The lack of school  choice, has made it certain, that those children who are trapped in substandard schools, will remain there.  Affirmative action laws on college entrance, place low performing students into schools where they could not compete, so they dropped out, while instead, student who could make the grade, were prevented from attending.

Social security. Another dumb idea whose time has passed. You are forced to pay a tax, so that someday, you might receive a pittance in your golden years, instead of being encourage to place than money into investments which would net you millions.

The Endangered Species Act.  Designed to protect enangered species, is succeeding at motivating the destruction of habitats.

There are hundreds of example of these big hearted ideas that have gone wrong. This is the problem with voting with your heart, and not your head.

In any election, think about the problem and the offered solutions. Ask yourself where the money comes from, try to figure out who really pays for it. Is it the rich? The corporations? Or is it realy the consumers and tax payers. The left seems to act as though there is this unending suplly of money to be had, and that the government should just be able to take it, and apply it to what those in power deem best. How have they done so far? Government is wasteful, because it has no competition, private industry has to compete and be efficient, or it fails. Ask yourself if those in power, and those who want to be, have the experience and knowledge, a proven track record at problem solving. Sadly, sometimes you have no choice. Remember when I opined that perhaps most voters are not qualified to vote? I will add to that that most politicians aren’t either!

Omegaman for dictator – 2008

I am Omegaman and I approved this message!

 

Now, I am about to post this in my blog – and I am going to allow comments for those who choose to, but since my controversial rants tend to draw fire, I a heading for the hills on this one, and may not respond to any – at this moment, I am way too busy to get drawn in to defending my own positions – fire away if you like, but I am going into hiding for a while.