I just rewatched Gattaca for the first time since the 90s last night. For those unaware, the premise is that in the near future children who are not genetically engineered are discriminated as such, and cannot get the same opportunities as those who are genetically engineered.
This calls to mind a concern I have had, and how it affects some minor decisions. If given the opportunity I probably would not have genetic testing done, and I probably wouldn't get screening for diseases which lack a cure, such as Alzheimers. The reason is not because I am morally or intellectually opposed to such testing. The reason is that I think it will eventually mess up my insurance.
In Gattaca, the protagonist experiences discrimination in his desired profession of astronaut because his health makes him a risk to a mission. He is instead only able to get a job cleaning offices. The plot of the movie involves how he gets around the system in his attempt to get into the space program.
I don't fear my genetics or the results of a test would eliminate me from jobs like the main character in this movie, though I am already medically eliminated from a few. I am alert to the possibility that one day such a test could cause me to be unable to get health insurance or life insurance, however.
Right now in the U.S. it is not legal for health insurance companies to refuse to sell insurance to someone based on pre-existing conditions. That may or may not be reversed in the future, as there is a lawsuit going through the federal court system which may do just that. This is something that I always need to keep in mind when getting tested.
Furthermore, the pre-existing condition limitation also does not apply to companies who sell life insurance. If I were to have a test done that showed I had a mutation that made me a bit more likely to have a stroke or get Alzheimers, I would be obligated to share this information with a company I was planning to by life insurance from, and potentially get myself priced out of the life insurance market as a result, in the case that I decided to get additional life insurance to what I currently have.
Some would jump to the insurance company's defense and say that their job is just to provide a service that sets a price based upon a calculated risk. I am not casting blame, however. I am just saying that in the current environment, there is a potential motivation to not know everything about your health and genetics.
Policy makers should keep in mind that systems which allow for filtering on pre-existing conditions or genetic conditions motivate some people like me to simply avoid pursuing that data. There has to be a better way, so that willful ignorance isn't a winning strategy.
Showing posts with label doctrine and philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doctrine and philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
happy holidays or merry christmas?
Around the holidays the issue of people saying "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy holidays" seems to be s significant one for some folks. It's been a cultural debate, or in some cases, and opportunity to mock those who believe that greater culture needs to align with Christian doctrine. It seems like there would be two different perspectives that this can be viewed from.
In the one perspective, I can see how some Christians might expect other Christians to continue to say "Merry Christmas" if they believe that failing to do so is somehow denying the Incarnation of Christ. I don't know how the act of saying, "Happy holidays," could do such a thing, but maybe there are very specific social situations where refusing to acknowledge Christmas is an act of denying Christ's humanity. That is frankly the strongest argument I can make for getting worked up about someone not saying "Merry Christmas."
From a different perspective, does it make any sense for Christians to expect non-Christians to say, "Merry Christmas"? Is acknowledging that there are other holidays around this season denying Christ, and even if it were would it matter if someone who doesn't put their faith in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins did so?
If this were part of some overarching cultural strategy to do away with Christians celebrating Christ's birth I could see this being a big deal. However, that's a conspiracy I don't buy into.
I think this is a battle for people who want to devote their time and effort to cultural wars rather than devoting their lives to the Gospel as presented in Scripture. When Paul wrote about the Devil's schemes, and that our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Eph 6:10-20), he was specifically arguing against earthly pursuits such as cultural warfare. Satan's goal isn't to get people to be more politically correct. It's to get them to spend their finite focus on the earthly things (like cultural warfare) rather than on teaching others about putting our full faith and trust in Christ's blood, and living a life that reflects that.
However, I do want to be open to arguments that I haven't articulated. Is there something that I'm missing about what saying, "Happy holidays," really means? Am I misunderstanding Paul, and cultural warfare is somehow Scripturally appropriate?
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
it can't happen here
Sorry, heavy topic alert.
I've been thinking about the Holocaust a bit lately because I recently listened to the audio version of Anne Frank's Diary, and also because I recently did some reading about Kristallnacht in memory of its eightieth anniversary. I used to be confused about how Nazism took hold, how Hitler was able to come into power, and how people could rationalize supporting a government that sent people to concentration camps. I've thought many times that it couldn't happen here. While it would be much harder for something like that to happen in the United States with the separated powers we enjoy in this country, in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that it can happen here. People are people, and they're prone to demonizing others if doing so supports their preconceived worldview.
That Internet conversations and debates frequently devolve into one side comparing the other to Hitler or the Nazis is so well established that it has its own informal law. The real shame of this tendency is that comparing everyone to Hitler and the Nazis makes it so that few really take it seriously when someone actually does things like Hitler would. If a real Hitler appears, anyone pointing it out would be seen as a crazy person triggering Godwin's Law.
My views on identifying nascent Nazism have changed some over the years. I used to think of it as a workers movement because this is the vibe that the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will gives, and I in turn thought that was what I needed to be wary of. However, workers movements elsewhere haven't had that same destructive tinge. Certainly, some have. The destructive ones are noteworthy because they're the exceptions, though. Most have not. Therefore, it has to be something deeper.
It could be that the key is that Nazism, like Fascism, was Nationalist. I know that belief is getting airtime nowadays more than in the past. It could also be that a deeper dig could reveal that this is unfair to some Nationalist movements which are not so destructive, if such movements exist. I simply don't know at this time.
I'm not calling anyone on the world stage a Hitler today. Even if I did, who would take it seriously? These are now the sort of accusations crazy people make, and so they are a red flag to most that the speaker wants to decry everyone who disagrees with his as a Nazi. I do see tendencies of what I do know about Hitler and Nazism in general in some modern political figures and movements that give me pause, though. Some of those figures are in other countries and some are in the United States. Since I'm no true expert, it would be unfair for me to call out someone as a Hitler based on a partial observation. I have to believe though, that it would also be right for me to be cautious about their statements and actions, and refuse to support or endorse those individuals and movements, wittingly or otherwise.
It is easy to see how an individual with similarities to Hitler could take power, and how horrible things could be justified in the name of whatever that man portrayed as the ideal. In 1930s Germany the ideal was a form of Eugenics supported by a host of conspiracy theories about Zionists. I'm certain that a lot of Germans figured the Jews were simply being sent to a camp where they couldn't harm anyone else, and whatever happened to them they had coming. Modern societies aren't immune to that sort of thinking. Someone today can mix a weird political philosophy with conspiracy theories about some other group of people and do the same thing. As long as a vocal minority (or even majority) believes the conspiracy theory, what's to stop them from doing horrible things? Those people probably won't even ever realize the negative things they enabled.
History can be scary when you stop thinking that it can't happen here.
I've been thinking about the Holocaust a bit lately because I recently listened to the audio version of Anne Frank's Diary, and also because I recently did some reading about Kristallnacht in memory of its eightieth anniversary. I used to be confused about how Nazism took hold, how Hitler was able to come into power, and how people could rationalize supporting a government that sent people to concentration camps. I've thought many times that it couldn't happen here. While it would be much harder for something like that to happen in the United States with the separated powers we enjoy in this country, in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that it can happen here. People are people, and they're prone to demonizing others if doing so supports their preconceived worldview.
That Internet conversations and debates frequently devolve into one side comparing the other to Hitler or the Nazis is so well established that it has its own informal law. The real shame of this tendency is that comparing everyone to Hitler and the Nazis makes it so that few really take it seriously when someone actually does things like Hitler would. If a real Hitler appears, anyone pointing it out would be seen as a crazy person triggering Godwin's Law.
My views on identifying nascent Nazism have changed some over the years. I used to think of it as a workers movement because this is the vibe that the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will gives, and I in turn thought that was what I needed to be wary of. However, workers movements elsewhere haven't had that same destructive tinge. Certainly, some have. The destructive ones are noteworthy because they're the exceptions, though. Most have not. Therefore, it has to be something deeper.
It could be that the key is that Nazism, like Fascism, was Nationalist. I know that belief is getting airtime nowadays more than in the past. It could also be that a deeper dig could reveal that this is unfair to some Nationalist movements which are not so destructive, if such movements exist. I simply don't know at this time.
I'm not calling anyone on the world stage a Hitler today. Even if I did, who would take it seriously? These are now the sort of accusations crazy people make, and so they are a red flag to most that the speaker wants to decry everyone who disagrees with his as a Nazi. I do see tendencies of what I do know about Hitler and Nazism in general in some modern political figures and movements that give me pause, though. Some of those figures are in other countries and some are in the United States. Since I'm no true expert, it would be unfair for me to call out someone as a Hitler based on a partial observation. I have to believe though, that it would also be right for me to be cautious about their statements and actions, and refuse to support or endorse those individuals and movements, wittingly or otherwise.
It is easy to see how an individual with similarities to Hitler could take power, and how horrible things could be justified in the name of whatever that man portrayed as the ideal. In 1930s Germany the ideal was a form of Eugenics supported by a host of conspiracy theories about Zionists. I'm certain that a lot of Germans figured the Jews were simply being sent to a camp where they couldn't harm anyone else, and whatever happened to them they had coming. Modern societies aren't immune to that sort of thinking. Someone today can mix a weird political philosophy with conspiracy theories about some other group of people and do the same thing. As long as a vocal minority (or even majority) believes the conspiracy theory, what's to stop them from doing horrible things? Those people probably won't even ever realize the negative things they enabled.
History can be scary when you stop thinking that it can't happen here.
Monday, September 24, 2018
retirement
In thinking about life goals one of the obvious questions that comes to mind is when I want to retire. I've been struggling with that thought as of late because, as far as I can tell, retirement isn't very scriptural.
The one passage that I have come back to time and again over the last few years is Luke 12:13-21. In this passage a man asks Jesus to mediate an inheritance dispute he has with his brother. Jesus' response is to question why he should be an arbitrator in this dispute, then to warn against greed and an abundance of possessions. He follows it up with what seems like a damning parable.
In the parable a rich man has a bumper crop, and his response is to build grain storage. He figures he can now live off this grain, kick back, and not worry about life any more. The NIV records him as saying, "Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” Jesus calls the man a fool and spells out the condemnation the man is to experience.
A typical westerner will read this passage with an almost automatic, "Of course Jesus isn't warning against savings! He's simply preaching against greed, laziness, and lack of care for others in a general sense. Sure, saving excessively is greed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't save for retirement." Without fail, if I bring this issue up to others in a church or Bible study setting with a question about retirement, someone jumps to retirement's defense without really addressing the fact that Jesus told a parable where the villain's villainy was simply that they saved when they should have given away.
I'm not actually trying to make a point here. I honestly don't know what to do with this. I have a retirement account. I don't contribute at the level that Fidelity says you should, but it exists for the purpose of providing an income when Golden and I are older. Is this wrong?
I think the question of what to do with this passage invites knee-jerk responses, but it really deserves heartfelt contemplation, even if a person decides that retirement accounts are good and acceptable. As I noted, I have a retirement account and I still contribute to it. Part of the why is that I'm not convinced yet that it's inherently wrong.
One potentially valid argument that I have heard is that the cultural rules for caring for one's elders has changed. Retirement accounts weren't a thing because elders in the same family unit worked together in whatever the family trade was and all raised the children together. Retirement accounts are a natural result of a structural shift in our culture where family units are smaller, and don't include grandparents. Whether that is good or bad can be debated, but it is possible that this cultural element to this that changes the application of this passage.
One thing I am certain Jesus was decrying is a mindset that I do see within the church today, and that I am prone to. Jesus very clearly indicated that the person who believed they had earned the right to leisure and pleasure was to be condemned. So, perhaps the question isn't whether retirement from a specific career is wrong, but whether the attitude surrounding that retirement is wrong. If I have the perspective that I've earned or I deserve to spend the rest of my life devoted to "me time" because I've banked enough money to do that, I'm inviting condemnation.
It's a lot to think about when reviewing my 401(k).
The one passage that I have come back to time and again over the last few years is Luke 12:13-21. In this passage a man asks Jesus to mediate an inheritance dispute he has with his brother. Jesus' response is to question why he should be an arbitrator in this dispute, then to warn against greed and an abundance of possessions. He follows it up with what seems like a damning parable.
In the parable a rich man has a bumper crop, and his response is to build grain storage. He figures he can now live off this grain, kick back, and not worry about life any more. The NIV records him as saying, "Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” Jesus calls the man a fool and spells out the condemnation the man is to experience.
A typical westerner will read this passage with an almost automatic, "Of course Jesus isn't warning against savings! He's simply preaching against greed, laziness, and lack of care for others in a general sense. Sure, saving excessively is greed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't save for retirement." Without fail, if I bring this issue up to others in a church or Bible study setting with a question about retirement, someone jumps to retirement's defense without really addressing the fact that Jesus told a parable where the villain's villainy was simply that they saved when they should have given away.
I'm not actually trying to make a point here. I honestly don't know what to do with this. I have a retirement account. I don't contribute at the level that Fidelity says you should, but it exists for the purpose of providing an income when Golden and I are older. Is this wrong?
I think the question of what to do with this passage invites knee-jerk responses, but it really deserves heartfelt contemplation, even if a person decides that retirement accounts are good and acceptable. As I noted, I have a retirement account and I still contribute to it. Part of the why is that I'm not convinced yet that it's inherently wrong.
One potentially valid argument that I have heard is that the cultural rules for caring for one's elders has changed. Retirement accounts weren't a thing because elders in the same family unit worked together in whatever the family trade was and all raised the children together. Retirement accounts are a natural result of a structural shift in our culture where family units are smaller, and don't include grandparents. Whether that is good or bad can be debated, but it is possible that this cultural element to this that changes the application of this passage.
One thing I am certain Jesus was decrying is a mindset that I do see within the church today, and that I am prone to. Jesus very clearly indicated that the person who believed they had earned the right to leisure and pleasure was to be condemned. So, perhaps the question isn't whether retirement from a specific career is wrong, but whether the attitude surrounding that retirement is wrong. If I have the perspective that I've earned or I deserve to spend the rest of my life devoted to "me time" because I've banked enough money to do that, I'm inviting condemnation.
It's a lot to think about when reviewing my 401(k).
Saturday, June 02, 2018
a parable about spring
After the creation and the fall of man God decided to illustrate the significance of His creation to the archangel Gabriel.
"Gabriel," God opened, "consider the seasons that I have bestowed on the earth I have given mankind. The variation points to My unsurpassed creativity and care for the aesthetic. The cycles of life points to my ultimate plan for mankind."
"I see your wisdom and forethought in it," acknowledged Gabriel.
"Think about spring in particular," continued the Lord. "The skies are populated by birds. The streams and rivers swell and are filled by fish and other aquatic life. Grass, flowers, and tress bud and spring to life. What appeared to be dead only weeks prior is vibrant with life. Animals of from the least to the greatest all multiply in spring."
"Spring does remind one of new life," agreed Gabriel.
"And the colors! Where winter offered overcast grays, spring brings the bold yellows, purples, and blues of newly blooming flowers. It brings verdant greens to the grasses and the trees. Even the thunderstorms offer deep royal blues to the landscape."
"Spring is indeed a beautiful season," Gabriel opined.
"Think also of the food," reminded God. "Where winter offered little hope for sustenance, spring is a hint at what is to come. Crops are planted. Fruit trees bud. Animals are fattened. Mankind is reminded of My provision and omnipotence."
"Humanity would be hopeless without your provision," Gabriel observed. "This does make me wonder about something, though."
"Ask your question," God allowed.
"Well," Gabriel started, "if you have provided mankind with images of life, beauty, and provision all within the span of one season, isn't it possible that mankind will prefer earth to heaven? Aren't you concerned that they will not feel a need for heaven if earth is too perfect, even if only for one season?"
God looked at Gabriel with an omniscient smile and responded, "Let me tell you about another of my creations: ragweed."
"Gabriel," God opened, "consider the seasons that I have bestowed on the earth I have given mankind. The variation points to My unsurpassed creativity and care for the aesthetic. The cycles of life points to my ultimate plan for mankind."
"I see your wisdom and forethought in it," acknowledged Gabriel.
"Think about spring in particular," continued the Lord. "The skies are populated by birds. The streams and rivers swell and are filled by fish and other aquatic life. Grass, flowers, and tress bud and spring to life. What appeared to be dead only weeks prior is vibrant with life. Animals of from the least to the greatest all multiply in spring."
"Spring does remind one of new life," agreed Gabriel.
"And the colors! Where winter offered overcast grays, spring brings the bold yellows, purples, and blues of newly blooming flowers. It brings verdant greens to the grasses and the trees. Even the thunderstorms offer deep royal blues to the landscape."
"Spring is indeed a beautiful season," Gabriel opined.
"Think also of the food," reminded God. "Where winter offered little hope for sustenance, spring is a hint at what is to come. Crops are planted. Fruit trees bud. Animals are fattened. Mankind is reminded of My provision and omnipotence."
"Humanity would be hopeless without your provision," Gabriel observed. "This does make me wonder about something, though."
"Ask your question," God allowed.
"Well," Gabriel started, "if you have provided mankind with images of life, beauty, and provision all within the span of one season, isn't it possible that mankind will prefer earth to heaven? Aren't you concerned that they will not feel a need for heaven if earth is too perfect, even if only for one season?"
God looked at Gabriel with an omniscient smile and responded, "Let me tell you about another of my creations: ragweed."
Monday, May 02, 2016
teaching in church
"Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."- James 3:1
I have been the primary teacher in our Sunday School class for just short of four years now, along with rotating through teaching a men's class on Wednesday nights for the past couple of years. Many of the classes I have taught have been very thin in attendance (I've taught a solitary person more than once), but many have been well-attended by very intelligent people. That might sound like bragging, but what what has struck me over and over the past few years is how unqualified I am, and how ridiculous it is that I presume to be able to teach many of the people who regularly fill the seats. I don't have more knowledge or experience. All I have is that I put in time to research and prepare a lesson every week. Just about anyone could do that.
The reason I teach is not skill or a love for teaching. I'm not a great speaker. What drives me is the fact that it seems like a waste of time if everyone takes the time to show up and the topic of discussion is either shallow or not well researched. Why even show up, then?
In light of the statement above from James, it is scary what I don't know. How can I teach when there are so many questions that I don't know let alone the answers? There are passages of Scripture that flat-out confound, and there are realities of life I am not close to grasping. People ask hard questions in class and pose difficult scenarios, as they should. There is a limit to my knowledge, and the a big theme of the last five years for me has been realizing how much I still need to understand about the Bible and doctrine. This being the case, how do I keep from leading people down wrong paths on this issue or the next?
Really, the only thing I know to keep myself in line is something I mentioned in class a few months ago. If I get to the end of class and haven't mentioned how the passage we're looking at points to Christ, then something is wrong. I pray that there aren't other things that I state wrongly along the way.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
what people say about mormons
I have a strange litmus test that I use to determine how tolerant people are of others who are different. I listen for how they talk about or treat Mormons, or members of the LDS church.
If you are a Conservative and are not Mormon, you are probably a Catholic, Mainline Protestant, or Evangelical Christian who believes that their teachings are heretical. For my part, I believe their views on the Trinity are heresy. As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who hold that belief.
If you are Liberal, you may or may not be Christian, but you are likely to strongly disagree with the political positions the church has taken over the past few decades. As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who belong to that church.
So, when Mormonism is brought up (very rarely), I perk up to pay attention for how people speak of the people who hold that belief. Will they talk disparagingly about the people? Will they withhold judgment on the people, regardless how they feel about the church and it's positions and/or doctrines? It's edge-of-your-seat suspense!
In related news, I probably need to get out more.
If you are a Conservative and are not Mormon, you are probably a Catholic, Mainline Protestant, or Evangelical Christian who believes that their teachings are heretical. For my part, I believe their views on the Trinity are heresy. As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who hold that belief.
If you are Liberal, you may or may not be Christian, but you are likely to strongly disagree with the political positions the church has taken over the past few decades. As a result, there is motivation to speak ill or joke about people who belong to that church.
So, when Mormonism is brought up (very rarely), I perk up to pay attention for how people speak of the people who hold that belief. Will they talk disparagingly about the people? Will they withhold judgment on the people, regardless how they feel about the church and it's positions and/or doctrines? It's edge-of-your-seat suspense!
In related news, I probably need to get out more.
Monday, March 21, 2016
karma and schadenfreude
Every once in a while I will hear someone say that they believe in karma or that they get enjoyment out of karma. In some instances I will hear of someone getting their just desserts as karma exacting revenge on that person. This usage of "karma" is not technically accurate.
First, I should note that since I am Christian I do not believe in literal karma, no matter how it is defined. It is important to understand what I am disagreeing with when someone declares karma, however.
The real definition of karma comes from the Hindu religion. The idea is that good deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in good outcomes for people, and that bad deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in bad outcomes for people. The key is that this is supposed to be experienced in a person's next life. Someone's karmic state is intrinsically linked to his or her reincarnation, and so payback would probably be in the quality of someone's next life, which would be lived without an understanding of the evils committed in the previous life. Based on my understanding of the concept, which is admittedly imperfect, karma would have to be experienced a long time later, and probably in a future life rather than in this one.
I believe that a better word for what people mean when they say, "karma," is, "schadenfreude." It's also a much more fun word to pronounce! I believe that most of my audience knows what it means, but for the uninformed the dictionary.com definition is, "satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune." I have mostly heard it used in conjunction with enjoying someone else's misery because one believes that misery is deserved. So, when I hear that someone believes in karma, or enjoys seeing examples of karma, I understand that they simply like seeing the suffering of those they believe to be immoral. This is more accurately the practical definition for schadenfreude.
Christian believers are not permitted to believe in Hindu karma or partake in schadenfreude. Real karma is in direct contradiction to Heb 9:27, which states that people are destined to die once, and then to face judgment. Schadenfreude is founded in a desire for vengeance that violates the spirit of Rom 12:17-21, fun as it is to say.
I'll certainly grant that both concepts are interesting, and have some allure. At the very least, they can make you sound intelligent to adeptly use them in conversation. However, a Christian believer shouldn't revel in either.
First, I should note that since I am Christian I do not believe in literal karma, no matter how it is defined. It is important to understand what I am disagreeing with when someone declares karma, however.
The real definition of karma comes from the Hindu religion. The idea is that good deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in good outcomes for people, and that bad deeds, thoughts, actions, etc. eventually result in bad outcomes for people. The key is that this is supposed to be experienced in a person's next life. Someone's karmic state is intrinsically linked to his or her reincarnation, and so payback would probably be in the quality of someone's next life, which would be lived without an understanding of the evils committed in the previous life. Based on my understanding of the concept, which is admittedly imperfect, karma would have to be experienced a long time later, and probably in a future life rather than in this one.
I believe that a better word for what people mean when they say, "karma," is, "schadenfreude." It's also a much more fun word to pronounce! I believe that most of my audience knows what it means, but for the uninformed the dictionary.com definition is, "satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune." I have mostly heard it used in conjunction with enjoying someone else's misery because one believes that misery is deserved. So, when I hear that someone believes in karma, or enjoys seeing examples of karma, I understand that they simply like seeing the suffering of those they believe to be immoral. This is more accurately the practical definition for schadenfreude.
Christian believers are not permitted to believe in Hindu karma or partake in schadenfreude. Real karma is in direct contradiction to Heb 9:27, which states that people are destined to die once, and then to face judgment. Schadenfreude is founded in a desire for vengeance that violates the spirit of Rom 12:17-21, fun as it is to say.
I'll certainly grant that both concepts are interesting, and have some allure. At the very least, they can make you sound intelligent to adeptly use them in conversation. However, a Christian believer shouldn't revel in either.
Friday, March 18, 2016
why i'm a tightwad
I used to watch Suze Orman quite a bit. It could have really been any personal finance advisor on TV, but she was the one who was on CNBC on Saturday nights years ago when I had an hour every week.
The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories. The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice. The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it. I never felt I fit in either category. That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.
Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes. We are nowhere near destitute. We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.
One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions. I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature. As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.
I know that the worry that drives this is sinful. I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives. It is something God is still working on in me.
The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is. Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family. What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though. What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.
Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option. If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.
I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation. I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans. I still think about it, though.
The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories. The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice. The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it. I never felt I fit in either category. That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.
Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes. We are nowhere near destitute. We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.
One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions. I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature. As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.
I know that the worry that drives this is sinful. I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives. It is something God is still working on in me.
The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is. Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family. What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though. What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.
Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option. If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.
I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation. I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans. I still think about it, though.
Friday, February 12, 2016
kids and politics
With the upcoming presidential election we have had more discussions with the kids about politics in the past few months than ever before. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.
While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids. Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.). I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics. Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.
My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you. My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity. The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs. I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise. It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though. I know because I remember thinking that way. It's just a natural, human inclination.
Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious. We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion. It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that. Alas, many do. Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.
I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions. This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives. I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid. Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.
All of this just leads back to my original point. I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.
While, as anyone who reads this page regularly knows, I am very interested in political issues, I also don't think that there is any ideal way to discuss most political issues with elementary-aged kids. Kids are naturally inclined to think in very black and white terms and think of people as good or bad (This is different than the Christian view of good and bad where everyone is in the "bad" category.). I believe that is a dangerous view to bring into politics, and so I am nervous about us introducing our kids to more than a surface level of politics. Even going to far as to imply that one party is better or worse than another is concerning because that introduces an "Us versus Them" mentality that can lead to bad places.
My belief is that politics, more than anything else, is proof positive that no matter what you believe, there are scoundrels who will try to win your vote by agreeing with you. My experience is that there is little to no correlation between political viewpoint and integrity. The liars and the selfishly ambitious reside in all levels of the political perspective, as do those who are principled and true to their beliefs. I do not currently believe that people are good or bad (or dishonest or principled) based on whether they agree with me politically because I have years of life experience to tell me otherwise. It's hard not to think that way as a kid, though. I know because I remember thinking that way. It's just a natural, human inclination.
Even explaining the political issues that drive our positions is precarious. We recently had a difficult discussion with CD regarding abortion. It would be easy for someone who against abortion (or for it) to simply paint those who disagree as being evil and leave things at that. Alas, many do. Few positions are more genuinely held than ones regarding abortion, though, so it is wrong not to acknowledge the reasoning of those who disagree.
I don't want CD or NJ to grow up without empathy for those who have to make difficult choices in life, even if we ultimately disagree to the point of being appalled with the results of those decisions. This is especially because everyone has made appalling decisions at some point in their lives. I also don't want to give them something to rebel against once they grow to understand that those who disagree with Mom and Dad often have reasons that seem reasonable and valid. Change one or two assumptions about underlying truth, and right and wrong can change dramatically.
All of this just leads back to my original point. I can't wait until this election is over and we can move on from discussing politics in this house.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
powerball
Recently, the Powerball lottery got up to some ridiculous level that causes a lot of people to want to gamble. Usually when that happens someone in my office decides to buy a pool of tickets, and whoever contributes gets a share of any winnings. I always go in for the price of one ticket for one reason and one reason only: insurance.
Like most things, my view on gambling is that it is not sin, but the attitudes a person brings into it are frequently sin. So, for a lot of people gambling is sin because of why they gamble, or what gambling brings out in them. In fact, I do believe it's difficult to gamble without a sinful attitude. If I were to find myself daydreaming about never working again, or longing for whatever luxury items something like that would afford, or risking my family's stability, those would likely indicate underlying problems. I hope in that instance I would avoid participating, because that would be a sign of something wrong with my motives.
What I don't want to happen, and what I am genuinely concerned about, is for everyone else in my office to win then quit on the same day. Being the last guy left in the department would be an absolute nightmare. So, I throw in the minimum so that if that sort of thing happens I have a little more freedom to decide what to do.
Truth be told, I don't really want to win the lottery. Sure, I would love the money, but the problems that would come from getting the money in this way would probably outweigh that. There are a number of people in my life who have moral issues with this, so it would open multiple uncomfortable conversations. Then, there would be pressure to contribute to specific causes, and while it would be great to have that opportunity, it would open up a lot of saying no to disappointed people as well.
Another concern I have has its basis in pride. The odds of winning the lottery are outlandish, and I don't want people to think I that I bought tickets with a serious hope of winning. The joke goes that the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math, and a prideful part of me doesn't want others to associate me with that. How could I not if I were known to have won the lottery?
So, while I try to make sure I'm technically covered from the bad results of everyone winning the lottery at a cost I'll gladly pay, I'm not actually hoping for us to win. The good news is that, unlike most people playing the lottery, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of what I am hoping for.
Like most things, my view on gambling is that it is not sin, but the attitudes a person brings into it are frequently sin. So, for a lot of people gambling is sin because of why they gamble, or what gambling brings out in them. In fact, I do believe it's difficult to gamble without a sinful attitude. If I were to find myself daydreaming about never working again, or longing for whatever luxury items something like that would afford, or risking my family's stability, those would likely indicate underlying problems. I hope in that instance I would avoid participating, because that would be a sign of something wrong with my motives.
What I don't want to happen, and what I am genuinely concerned about, is for everyone else in my office to win then quit on the same day. Being the last guy left in the department would be an absolute nightmare. So, I throw in the minimum so that if that sort of thing happens I have a little more freedom to decide what to do.
Truth be told, I don't really want to win the lottery. Sure, I would love the money, but the problems that would come from getting the money in this way would probably outweigh that. There are a number of people in my life who have moral issues with this, so it would open multiple uncomfortable conversations. Then, there would be pressure to contribute to specific causes, and while it would be great to have that opportunity, it would open up a lot of saying no to disappointed people as well.
Another concern I have has its basis in pride. The odds of winning the lottery are outlandish, and I don't want people to think I that I bought tickets with a serious hope of winning. The joke goes that the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math, and a prideful part of me doesn't want others to associate me with that. How could I not if I were known to have won the lottery?
So, while I try to make sure I'm technically covered from the bad results of everyone winning the lottery at a cost I'll gladly pay, I'm not actually hoping for us to win. The good news is that, unlike most people playing the lottery, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of what I am hoping for.
Sunday, November 08, 2015
wars versus trek
For whatever reason, many of those who love either Star Wars or Star Trek seem to have either disdain or condescension for fanboys of the other franchise. Throughout the years I have heard many arguments between those who think that Star Wars is the epitome of storytelling and those who think that Star Trek provides great intellectual depth and something to aspire to as the human race. I don't understand the debate at all, though, because neither series really should be considered part of the same genre.
Can you imagine for a moment people arguing about whether The View or Sportscenter is better? They're both popular shows where hosts sit behind a desk, present news, and pontificate upon it's significance, right? So that has to mean their comparable enough to debate which one is qualitatively better. Of course that's ridiculous, and I think it's equally ridiculous to argue about Star Wars versus Star Trek.
While both franchises are Science Fiction story lines that have garnered rabid fan-bases, that is where their similarities end. Their central purposes for being are entirely unrelated.
Star Wars is, and always has been, meant to be classic archetypal story that happens to be set in a futuristic setting (yet in the past and far, far away). The setting is not supposed to be what drives the story. The setting simply provides the surrounding details for a story that could just as easily, though less entertainingly, be set in a less exotic locale.
Star Trek is, and always has been, an optimistic view of what humanity could achieve, and what humanity could discover through those achievements. The setting not only drives the story, it is the story. An episode of Star Trek (or one of the movies) is presented with a hint of, "See what the crew of The Enterprise is discovering and experiencing? We could discover and experience that too if we commit to technological advancement and supplanting Capitalism!"
The primary reason I have been thinking about this is that I have always been torn when people argue about these two franchises. There have probably been times in my life when I would have favored one over the other, but never by much. I greatly enjoy both of them on the right day and in the right mood, but I have never been a fanboy of either. Both have great strengths and both have extraordinary flaws. There is very little appropriate way to compare them, however, and do either justice.
Can you imagine for a moment people arguing about whether The View or Sportscenter is better? They're both popular shows where hosts sit behind a desk, present news, and pontificate upon it's significance, right? So that has to mean their comparable enough to debate which one is qualitatively better. Of course that's ridiculous, and I think it's equally ridiculous to argue about Star Wars versus Star Trek.
While both franchises are Science Fiction story lines that have garnered rabid fan-bases, that is where their similarities end. Their central purposes for being are entirely unrelated.
Star Wars is, and always has been, meant to be classic archetypal story that happens to be set in a futuristic setting (yet in the past and far, far away). The setting is not supposed to be what drives the story. The setting simply provides the surrounding details for a story that could just as easily, though less entertainingly, be set in a less exotic locale.
Star Trek is, and always has been, an optimistic view of what humanity could achieve, and what humanity could discover through those achievements. The setting not only drives the story, it is the story. An episode of Star Trek (or one of the movies) is presented with a hint of, "See what the crew of The Enterprise is discovering and experiencing? We could discover and experience that too if we commit to technological advancement and supplanting Capitalism!"
The primary reason I have been thinking about this is that I have always been torn when people argue about these two franchises. There have probably been times in my life when I would have favored one over the other, but never by much. I greatly enjoy both of them on the right day and in the right mood, but I have never been a fanboy of either. Both have great strengths and both have extraordinary flaws. There is very little appropriate way to compare them, however, and do either justice.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
ten years
A couple of weeks ago was the ten year anniversary for this blog. When I look at life as it was for me then and now I don't know if I am more surprised by the things that have changed or the things that have stayed the same.
Most of the good friends with whom I created these blogs have moved, though I believe that some of those plans were already in the works when the blogs were started. We lost our good friend Forrest along the way, as well as my co-worker at the time, T-Bop. We aren't guaranteed tomorrow, and I did not properly understand that ten years ago.
The things I am the most embarrassed about from my former days are the issues I was apparently working through and the fact that I had a far lesser grasp on essential doctrines than I thought I did.
Regarding issues, everyone has them but they're more obvious for some than others. I have made significant improvements over the last ten years, and I'm sure that's partially just part of the process of aging. There are more things I'm confident that I understand, I care somewhat less what people think, and I have a better grasp on my own personal quirks than I did before. Life can be a positive journey in that respect. I still need to mellow out quite a bit, though.
Regarding doctrine, I'll just say I'm a bit mortified. Ten years ago I was as well-read in the Bible as a twenty-five-year-old can be, but I lacked a depth of understanding. With every discovery I make in study I gain new embarrassment regarding things I used to say. Some positions I have held in my doctrinal journey have been borderline heretical, and so I have had to correct and repent of some erroneous positions. You live and learn, but this is serious stuff.
I have always been the sort to stick around in one place, so I still work in the same job but at a higher title. This time ten years ago I was in the process of deciding if that was really the path I wanted to take. When I committed to getting my MBA ten years ago, that was a commitment to stay in this job for a long while because I was getting tuition assistance. I will confess that I had some serious questions about the wisdom of that path ten years ago, though I believe I took the best route forward. That, of course, comes from someone who values consistency, so staying at the same place for ten years naturally feels best.
The biggest difference in my life from ten years ago, though, are that Golden and I now have NJ and CH in our lives. I cannot fathom too many things that changes the nature and priorities of your life as having kids, and there's plenty of positive and negative that can be said about it. We love ours, though, and are so proud of the progress they have made in school, church, and elsewhere.
Finally, this year Golden and I celebrate our fifteenth anniversary. When I started the blog we were looking at five years together, and that seemed impossibly long. It doesn't feel like fifteen is remotely possible. Part of that is because I still feel like we are learning more about each other each day. She is aging far, far better than I am, and I am fortunate to have her. One thing that you get out of fifteen years of marriage is perspective on the things that make a good or bad spouse. I have a good wife.
I hope to be able to keep this up for another ten years. Obviously, I do not post like I used to. Life responsibilities guarantee that. That does not mean that I do not appreciate having this outlet, though. I hope all who still read this get some enjoyment out of it.
Most of the good friends with whom I created these blogs have moved, though I believe that some of those plans were already in the works when the blogs were started. We lost our good friend Forrest along the way, as well as my co-worker at the time, T-Bop. We aren't guaranteed tomorrow, and I did not properly understand that ten years ago.
The things I am the most embarrassed about from my former days are the issues I was apparently working through and the fact that I had a far lesser grasp on essential doctrines than I thought I did.
Regarding issues, everyone has them but they're more obvious for some than others. I have made significant improvements over the last ten years, and I'm sure that's partially just part of the process of aging. There are more things I'm confident that I understand, I care somewhat less what people think, and I have a better grasp on my own personal quirks than I did before. Life can be a positive journey in that respect. I still need to mellow out quite a bit, though.
Regarding doctrine, I'll just say I'm a bit mortified. Ten years ago I was as well-read in the Bible as a twenty-five-year-old can be, but I lacked a depth of understanding. With every discovery I make in study I gain new embarrassment regarding things I used to say. Some positions I have held in my doctrinal journey have been borderline heretical, and so I have had to correct and repent of some erroneous positions. You live and learn, but this is serious stuff.
I have always been the sort to stick around in one place, so I still work in the same job but at a higher title. This time ten years ago I was in the process of deciding if that was really the path I wanted to take. When I committed to getting my MBA ten years ago, that was a commitment to stay in this job for a long while because I was getting tuition assistance. I will confess that I had some serious questions about the wisdom of that path ten years ago, though I believe I took the best route forward. That, of course, comes from someone who values consistency, so staying at the same place for ten years naturally feels best.
The biggest difference in my life from ten years ago, though, are that Golden and I now have NJ and CH in our lives. I cannot fathom too many things that changes the nature and priorities of your life as having kids, and there's plenty of positive and negative that can be said about it. We love ours, though, and are so proud of the progress they have made in school, church, and elsewhere.
Finally, this year Golden and I celebrate our fifteenth anniversary. When I started the blog we were looking at five years together, and that seemed impossibly long. It doesn't feel like fifteen is remotely possible. Part of that is because I still feel like we are learning more about each other each day. She is aging far, far better than I am, and I am fortunate to have her. One thing that you get out of fifteen years of marriage is perspective on the things that make a good or bad spouse. I have a good wife.
I hope to be able to keep this up for another ten years. Obviously, I do not post like I used to. Life responsibilities guarantee that. That does not mean that I do not appreciate having this outlet, though. I hope all who still read this get some enjoyment out of it.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
am i good?
The other night NJ asked me one of the hardest questions he could ask, "Am I good?" He followed it up by, "Are people who don't love Jesus bad?" There may not be two questions with more potential pitfalls than those two.
If I were to tell NJ that he was good that would lead to doctrinal problems later. Why is the Gospel good news if I am already good? That sounds minor, but it is the lynchpin that holds the entire Christian faith together. If I am already good I do not need Christ's righteousness, and if that is the case Christ died in vain.
If I were to tell NJ that he was not good that would lead to behavioral problems later on. Kids live up to or down to the expectations placed on them. If NJ was told that he was bad he could just fit his behaviors to the standard of being bad. He has already asked in the past why he was not allowed to be bad, so I know he would like an excuse to lower the standards he has to live by.
I discussed this with Golden, and we are going to teach our kids that there are two types of good. This is a bit nuanced for early elementary-aged kids, but it is something they will need to understand at some point anyway.
The first type of good is righteous good. Neither Golden nor I are righteous good, NJ is not righteous good, CD is not righteous good. Our only hope is to rely on Jesus, and his righteous good is credited to us as our own righteous good, even though we are not good in and of ourselves. Technically, believers are concurrently not righteous good (of their own works), and are righteous good (through the work of Christ) at the same time.
The second type of good is behavioral good. NJ and CD are deep-down behavioral good because they are generally obedient and respectful. One does not need to love Jesus to be behaviorally good because apparently good behavior can come from all sorts of motivations. A lot of people mistake this kind of good, which is really too superficial to mean much morally, for the other kind of good because the word "good" is ridiculously broad.
So, I am hoping that as the kids grow they are able to have a better sense for what "good" is than I had. I think that would be good.
If I were to tell NJ that he was good that would lead to doctrinal problems later. Why is the Gospel good news if I am already good? That sounds minor, but it is the lynchpin that holds the entire Christian faith together. If I am already good I do not need Christ's righteousness, and if that is the case Christ died in vain.
If I were to tell NJ that he was not good that would lead to behavioral problems later on. Kids live up to or down to the expectations placed on them. If NJ was told that he was bad he could just fit his behaviors to the standard of being bad. He has already asked in the past why he was not allowed to be bad, so I know he would like an excuse to lower the standards he has to live by.
I discussed this with Golden, and we are going to teach our kids that there are two types of good. This is a bit nuanced for early elementary-aged kids, but it is something they will need to understand at some point anyway.
The first type of good is righteous good. Neither Golden nor I are righteous good, NJ is not righteous good, CD is not righteous good. Our only hope is to rely on Jesus, and his righteous good is credited to us as our own righteous good, even though we are not good in and of ourselves. Technically, believers are concurrently not righteous good (of their own works), and are righteous good (through the work of Christ) at the same time.
The second type of good is behavioral good. NJ and CD are deep-down behavioral good because they are generally obedient and respectful. One does not need to love Jesus to be behaviorally good because apparently good behavior can come from all sorts of motivations. A lot of people mistake this kind of good, which is really too superficial to mean much morally, for the other kind of good because the word "good" is ridiculously broad.
So, I am hoping that as the kids grow they are able to have a better sense for what "good" is than I had. I think that would be good.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
torture is wrong
I include the video below only because I started thinking about this topic due to watching this tonight.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
One of the bigger recent news stories has been of the fact that details of how the CIA interrogated (or tortured, depending on who you ask) combatants captured in the war on terror. In the video above John McCain argues that he agrees with the Senate committee that released the details and also argues against the use of such interrogation techniques.
I for one do not know whether releasing the information was a good or a bad thing. I do not really intend to argue one way or the other because I do not have enough information to take an informed position on that. I do believe that I have enough information to take a position against the use of torture, however.
For a while I held the position that, while torture is a bad thing, it should be allowed in serious circumstances. If we believe that a bomb is going to go off in a city center, for example, and someone has information that could keep that bomb from going off, then I figured that torturing that individual should be an option on the table. This presents a few problems, though.
First, once Pandora's box is open where and how do you draw the lines? What is allowed and not allowed? How urgent is urgent enough? Is a bomb that threatens five people below the threshold but one that threatens twenty above it? Ultimately, in any scenario where the lines cannot be clearly drawn and where proper oversight is impossible the envelope will continue to be pushed until torture is allowed in scenarios that were never intended.
Second, I have heard multiple sources, including Senator McCain above, claim that torture does not produce useful information. While this may not be entirely true, I do believe its usefulness is more limited than most people realize. Is torture worth the moral cost if the information it gleans is minimal?
Third, the rationale I always used was an economic one, and that is not appropriate when dealing with moral issues. The thought went that if the action saves enough lives it is worth the moral cost of abusing someone else (who may or may not have it coming to them). Lives are not measurable units, however, and neither is the abuse something that should be measured against the value of lives. Certainly, if my family are the people threatened by the bomb I would probably be the first in line to extract the information to diffuse the bomb through abuse, and maybe in that it could be an act of love, but more of that is a confession of my sinful nature than I would like to admit.
In going along with this thought, I watched the movie Unthinkable about a year ago. From a philosophical standpoint the movie is interesting, but I would warn anyone who wants to watch it that it is not an enjoyable watch for a normal person. It deeply disturbing and very difficult to watch because it directly addresses the question of what torture is acceptable by presenting an extreme situation where millions might die, someone who has information to address the extreme situation, and a torturer whose job it is to extract that information. The movie is named by the fact that the torturer feels compelled to resort to unthinkable means of extracting information from the subject near the end of the movie, and the question in the viewer's mind is supposed to be whether he should take those truly disgusting steps in the name of saving so many lives.
I would argue that God does not calculate moral decisions based on the number of lives at stake. Therefore, something that is immoral to save one life is immoral to save a million lives. Again, if it is my family's lives, of course I am going to turn into a hypocrite, change my tune, and advocate whatever it takes. I am only a sinful human.
Finally, this may sound like a rehash, but I see no support for torture in Scripture, and rather an indication that it is Christians who should expect torture instead of dealing it out. Sure, we see that governments are given power to enforce justice (Rom 13:4), but we also see that God stood in judgment of nations and people who abused that power (Is 47:5-11). Further, we see no indication that Christians as individuals are permitted to do anything but respond to ill treatment by actively being kind and respecting their abusers (Matt 5:38-47; Rom 12:17-21). There was certainly violence that God commanded in the Old Testament, but I do not recall Him commanding torture.
Update (12/16/14):
I have two further notes I would like to make.
First, I am going to step away from political issues for a little while, so my next few posts should be largely apolitical. Thanks for indulging me on these, though.
Second, I did not address the justification that I keep hearing for torture that the recipients of said torture deserve it. Since I am addressing this from the perspective that it is unacceptable for Christians, I would point to the fact that, "they deserve it," is never a justification for doing something wrong to someone else for new covenant believers. This was the whole point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. The unmerciful servant was punished, not because he was unjust toward his fellow servant, but because he had no right to demand justice in the face of the mercy he had already been shown.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
a different means of encouragement
I am sorry that I have been away a while. Things pile up and a lot of things do not get done. I did have a quick thought that I wanted to share, however.
For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews. The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.
Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution. This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).
The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach. While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.
Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government? The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this. Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18). So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement. The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.
Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10). If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.
I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine. People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real." People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement. Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.
For the last few months I have been teaching a Sunday School class out of Hebrews. The primary reason for this is that I do not know that I have ever heard the book sufficiently taught, and so I felt this would be a learning experience for myself and for everyone in the class all at once.
Something that I have never realized about Hebrews is that it is meant to be an encouragement to a persecuted church full of members who might not hold up under persecution. This is why the book is full of comments about not drifting away from the Gospel (Heb 2:1), maintaining confidence in Christ (Heb 3:6,12; 4:14), and persevering in the faith in the face of persecution without laziness (Heb 6:11-12; 10:23; 12:1-3).
The way that Hebrews goes about strengthening those under persecution is very instructive, and not necessarily the most obvious approach. While we might today imagine a charismatic speaker inspiring people to endure through the assurance that they are important to God, the author of Hebrews sticks with thick doctrine.
Are you scared of death at the hands of a hostile Roman government? The author of Hebrews lays out the purpose of Christ's incarnation as a roundabout way to address this. Christ became man to share and defeat death with humanity, bring humanity to glory through his death, defeat Satan, and become our perfect high priest who can offer permanent atonement through his death and resurrection (Heb 2:9-18). So, while the encouragement is intended to be that we should not fear what Christ has defeated, and that Christ is there to assist the persecuted, it is not packaged as a stand alone trite statement. The encouragement is integrated into a meaty doctrinal treatise.
Likewise, when the encouragement is made to maintain faith in our faithful high priest (Heb 4:14), the author follows that statement up with multiple chapters developing the nature of Christ's priesthood (Heb 5,7-10). If the persecuted audience's faith was supposed to be in the completed work of Christ, the rationale was that understanding that work of Christ is what would cause the audience to maintain their faith.
I do believe just from personal experience that there is a modern temptation to seek encouragement in times of trouble in things other than sound and deep doctrine. People with mindsets like mine seek security in the "real." People with mindsets unlike mine seek security in inspirational encouragement. Both approaches are wrong, however. Believers are to utilize sound doctrine in establishing their faith in God and their confidence in Christ's work rather than trying to manufacture faith and confidence then work backwards to doctrine.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
forgiving the well-known
Most people like to be righteously indignant about someone else's objectively bad behavior. I am no different. The question I have is at what point do we need to let that indigence go and allow for someone to move on with their lives.
A few years back I posted on the requirement in the Christian faith on forgiveness. It is expected to be unwavering and absolute, because our level of forgiveness reflects our level of acceptance of the position we have in relation to God. This is not an expectation for non-believers, for Jesus himself stated that the one who has been forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), but there are no exceptions for Christians. We are to forgive as we have been forgiven, and that is an astronomical standard to meet.
The first universal examples of where this becomes difficult that spring to my mind are with celebrities. Names that spring to mind of people who others seem to find difficult to forgive for their real or perceived sins are Michael Vick, Mel Gibson, Tonya Harding, and Kanye West. For my own part, one person who always rubbed me the wrong way is the former Phillies outfielder, and later flawed investment adviser Lenny Dykstra. This was mostly due to his reputation for brash obnoxiousness, but he also served time for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.
Celebrities are easier to forgive than the next group that springs to mind: dictators and war criminals. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire Kim family in North Korea, are the easiest names to generate in my mind. These are just the well-known ones, though. In reality, just the last hundred years has seen thousands of people who violently abused their positions of power. None of these people ever wronged me or my family, so I am not in a position to need to forgive them, but how could a person do it?
My issue is that it is difficult for me not to think of myself as morally superior in my own self to many of the people whose names I have listed. I don't think I am alone in that. It seems a low bar to imagine myself as better than someone who is renown for their failings. As long as I allow myself to dwell there, though, my pride is every bit as evil to God as the crimes of those other individuals. That is my struggle.
A few years back I posted on the requirement in the Christian faith on forgiveness. It is expected to be unwavering and absolute, because our level of forgiveness reflects our level of acceptance of the position we have in relation to God. This is not an expectation for non-believers, for Jesus himself stated that the one who has been forgiven little loves little (Luke 7:47), but there are no exceptions for Christians. We are to forgive as we have been forgiven, and that is an astronomical standard to meet.
The first universal examples of where this becomes difficult that spring to my mind are with celebrities. Names that spring to mind of people who others seem to find difficult to forgive for their real or perceived sins are Michael Vick, Mel Gibson, Tonya Harding, and Kanye West. For my own part, one person who always rubbed me the wrong way is the former Phillies outfielder, and later flawed investment adviser Lenny Dykstra. This was mostly due to his reputation for brash obnoxiousness, but he also served time for bankruptcy fraud and money laundering.
Celebrities are easier to forgive than the next group that springs to mind: dictators and war criminals. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the entire Kim family in North Korea, are the easiest names to generate in my mind. These are just the well-known ones, though. In reality, just the last hundred years has seen thousands of people who violently abused their positions of power. None of these people ever wronged me or my family, so I am not in a position to need to forgive them, but how could a person do it?
My issue is that it is difficult for me not to think of myself as morally superior in my own self to many of the people whose names I have listed. I don't think I am alone in that. It seems a low bar to imagine myself as better than someone who is renown for their failings. As long as I allow myself to dwell there, though, my pride is every bit as evil to God as the crimes of those other individuals. That is my struggle.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
contentment
Last week I completed a six month read through the Bible which ate up more of my spare time than I anticipated it would. This has been enlightening, but it has solidified my belief in something that causes me a great deal of concern. God promises a lot of things in the life to come, but in this life we are promised little more than fulfillment and faith.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
"I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength. Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles."- Philippians 4:10-14To summarize, Paul understood relative wealth and poverty. In all of these circumstances he had learned the secret to contentment. The implication is that this is found in the Lord. The challenge to my faith lies in the fact that we are not promised easy lives. We are only promised that Christ's strength can give us contentment in the middle of difficult times.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
what i'm learning from scripture
I have to apologize for my lack of posts as of late. This latest dry spell has been because I am doing a reasonably aggressive Bible reading plan that takes much of my spare time. It is a six-month plan that covers all but one book of the Bible (it skips Job for whatever reason). Whenever I end up doing a plan like this I am torn between frustration at the loss of spare time (a precious commodity for a parent with young children) and the immense value I get from the reading.
The insights I have received from reading through the Bible in past years have always been reflective of the knowledge and faith that I have at the time. Better yet, they are reflective of the lack of knowledge and faith that I have at the time.
The last time reading through the Old Testament I greatly struggled at what--to a Western reader--feels like cultural baggage of sexism, racism, slavery, and sexual abuse. The code word in a lot of circles for this unpalatable aspect of Scripture is, "patriarchy," and in that time three years ago I felt the full force of this in my reading. In some cases there are still no easy answers or explanations for individual issues, but I have had three years to better understand God's priorities in Scripture. The other theme I picked up my last time reading through the Bible was that God desires broken people who know they are broken rather than self-righteous, pious ones. God will absolutely break people if He deems it necessary as well.
This time reading through the Bible there are two themes that have jumped out to me. The first is due to the fact that we have been studying Deuteronomy for the last year in Sunday School. This is that God works with His people in covenants, and so most of the commands in Scripture have to be understood through the lens of the covenant to which they are associated. A lot of the odd commands from the Mosaic Law only make sense in the context of the nation of Israel and the fact that they were a nation redeemed from Egypt and set apart for God's glory.
The second theme I have noticed this time through is how much of the Old Testament points directly to Christ. I am not even to the Major Prophets or Minor Prophets in my reading yet, and still so much of what I have read was fulfilled in Christ. I read from one of these passages today in Sunday School since it is appropriate for the present holiday, and I was embarrassingly choked up in the reading. I present it below without further comment.
Psalms 22:1-18
The insights I have received from reading through the Bible in past years have always been reflective of the knowledge and faith that I have at the time. Better yet, they are reflective of the lack of knowledge and faith that I have at the time.
The last time reading through the Old Testament I greatly struggled at what--to a Western reader--feels like cultural baggage of sexism, racism, slavery, and sexual abuse. The code word in a lot of circles for this unpalatable aspect of Scripture is, "patriarchy," and in that time three years ago I felt the full force of this in my reading. In some cases there are still no easy answers or explanations for individual issues, but I have had three years to better understand God's priorities in Scripture. The other theme I picked up my last time reading through the Bible was that God desires broken people who know they are broken rather than self-righteous, pious ones. God will absolutely break people if He deems it necessary as well.
This time reading through the Bible there are two themes that have jumped out to me. The first is due to the fact that we have been studying Deuteronomy for the last year in Sunday School. This is that God works with His people in covenants, and so most of the commands in Scripture have to be understood through the lens of the covenant to which they are associated. A lot of the odd commands from the Mosaic Law only make sense in the context of the nation of Israel and the fact that they were a nation redeemed from Egypt and set apart for God's glory.
The second theme I have noticed this time through is how much of the Old Testament points directly to Christ. I am not even to the Major Prophets or Minor Prophets in my reading yet, and still so much of what I have read was fulfilled in Christ. I read from one of these passages today in Sunday School since it is appropriate for the present holiday, and I was embarrassingly choked up in the reading. I present it below without further comment.
Psalms 22:1-18
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.
Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the one Israel praises. In you our ancestors put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. To you they cried out and were saved; in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by everyone, despised by the people. All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads. “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him.”
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast on you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. Roaring lions that tear their prey open their mouths wide against me. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted within me. My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death.
Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
the agreeable idiot
This is a short post as I do not intend to call anyone out and this is not really about a specific person or incident. It's just something that gives a hint to what's important to me.
Possibly the thing that annoys me more than anything else is when I find that I agree with someone and that someone is either obnoxious or an idiot. When it happens in matters like politics or philosophy it makes me feel equally unpleasant or stupid. When it happens in matters of faith my core is rocked in a way that few things can affect me. I typically feel a bit betrayed in that moment.
I know I am being hypocritical because I have been obnoxious and I have been stupid many times throughout my life. I am sure I have made many, many people cringe and feel intellectually betrayed throughout my life. Even so, these situations bother me deeply when they happen to me.
So, if everyone could decide to disagree with me when they are feeling particularly unpleasant or unwise, that would be great. I'll do my best to disagree with you when I sense I'm coming across as belligerent and unintelligent, and we'll call things even.
Possibly the thing that annoys me more than anything else is when I find that I agree with someone and that someone is either obnoxious or an idiot. When it happens in matters like politics or philosophy it makes me feel equally unpleasant or stupid. When it happens in matters of faith my core is rocked in a way that few things can affect me. I typically feel a bit betrayed in that moment.
I know I am being hypocritical because I have been obnoxious and I have been stupid many times throughout my life. I am sure I have made many, many people cringe and feel intellectually betrayed throughout my life. Even so, these situations bother me deeply when they happen to me.
So, if everyone could decide to disagree with me when they are feeling particularly unpleasant or unwise, that would be great. I'll do my best to disagree with you when I sense I'm coming across as belligerent and unintelligent, and we'll call things even.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
