Pin H. Chen - Adventurer w/o Border

Why the U.S. Presidential Candidates' Positions on Health Care Don't Make Sense

2017-01-25T00:46:00.003-05:00

One of the major issues in the current U.S. presidential race is health care. The cost of health care in the U.S. has risen past what is affordable for a large number of Americans. Both candidates for U.S. President are pushing for a restructuring of the health insurance system. They only differ in how to restructure it.

Whether we create a new national health insurance or provide incentives to private insurance, does tackling the problem via health insurance really make sense?

According to the National Coalition on Health Care:

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, from 1960 to 2005, the national health expenditure has risen from less than 6% of the gross domestic product to more than 16% of the gross domestic product.

The rise in cost is not simply a matter of inflation. There are systemic problems with the cost of health care. Sadly, we have, yet, to see the full blown cost result of this hyper-inflation of health care cost. The national health expenditure will escalate exponentially when the baby-boomer generation hits the age when they will need care for chronic illnesses associated with aging.

Implementing a new national health insurance system will not diminish the hyper-inflation of health care cost. It will only temporarily spread the current national health expenditure. As health care cost continues to rise, the cost of the health insurance will rise, pushing the cost of health insurance, once again, to where it's out of the reach of a large number of Americans.

Proposing a new national health insurance system is like saying, "We are doing some stupid things in our health care system that's causing the cost to rise at an uncontrollable rate; and we will throw a lot more money at the problem so that we can continue to do those stupid things but for more people."

A solution that does not solve the problem of health care cost hyper-inflation is simply stupid.

The rise in health care cost can be partitioned into five problem areas:

1) Defensive medicine to avoid mal-practice payout.
2) Enormous duplication of data entry of patient medical information.
3) Lack of free market forces for controlling the cost of prescription medication
4) Lack of incentive in health system to keep people healthy instead of healing them when they get sick.
5) Unhealthy lifestyle of a large number of Americans

The main reason defensive medicine is contributing to health care cost hyper-inflation is the lack of national legal standards to define what is acceptable medical procedure. The legal counsel for the plaintiff will always define acceptable medical procedures to be the most advanced and often experimental procedures that may have unproven effectiveness. Too often, the jury (uninformed about medical procedure) will agree with the plaintiff. These rulings push doctors to practice defensive medicine which includes these every expensive and often unnecessary procedures.

It would be more cost effective, than a new national health insurance system, to establish a permanent national medical board for defining the legal standard for acceptable medical procedures.

The duplication of data entry of medical information is due to a lack of a national standard for electronic storage and transmission of medical information as well as a lack of legislation to protect patient privacy regarding the electronic transmission of patient medical records. President Bush and various members of congress have been talking about this problem but have yet to come up with a framework for such legislation. Just do it already!

The lack of free market forces in prescription medication is a direct result of outdated patent system. This patent system protects the patent holders with very little regard for the consumer. The duration of the patent protection period is much too long. There needs to be a shortening of the patent protection period. However, to protect the interest of the patent holder, the countdown to the expiration date should begin when the first product based on the patent enters the market.

There is a lack of incentive in health system to keep people healthy instead of healing them when they get sick because our health care is based on a payment for medical procedure system. We need to move to a HMO-like payment scheme for our health care irregardless of whether we choose to be part of an HMO or to be a regular patient of a medical practice.

The average American lifestyle is literally killing us. Too many of us consume an unhealthy diet loaded with sugar and fat. Too many of us smoke tobacco products with no intention of quitting. To many of us do not even attempt to exercise once a week much less the recommended daily exercise.

These unhealthy lifestyles are resulting in chronic illnesses like coronary diseases (strokes and heat attacks), pulmonary diseases, diabetes, hypertension not to mention the need for joint (hip, knee) replacements.

Nowhere is the quote from the Pogo cartoon more applicable than in the American lifestyle:

"Yep, Son, we have met the enemy and he is us."

We need to stop subsidizing the corn from which most of our sweeteners are made. It would not only cut out a large portion of our unhealthy diet, it would also resolve the international complaints against the U.S. for unfair trade practices.

We should also allow the insurance companies to consider unhealthy behaviors like unhealthy weight and smoking in setting health insurance premiums.

We may even want to consider limiting commuter traffic to increase the likelihood of using public transportation and walking from the transportation stop to our destination.

I might even suggest raising the retirement age to keep the aging population active.

The best medicine and the most cost efficient medicine is to stay healthy.

Origin of Race within the Human Species

2017-01-07T10:49:00.001-05:00

In an online discussion following a post made by my friend, Michael, someone asked:

Hmmmm... I wonder who created the races! LOL

Although, he posted in jest, the post made me think hard about the answer. The following is my answer:

The concept of race is the creation of man. Race is identified by an arbitrary set of physical characteristics: skin tone, straightness of hair, facial features, etc. One can just as easily define race with a different set of physical characteristics. e.g., purely by height and body fat content.

His response:

Well, man created the "concept." But, who created the differences in human beings that are ultimately used to define race?

My answer:

Our differences are part of the beauty of God's creation. Division based on the differences is the result of man's fallen nature.

One does not fault God for creating a multitude of types of flowers.

Someone responded to my "Let's examine Hillary Clinton's Experience" Post

2016-10-18T15:01:00.001-04:00

Someone responded to my previous post with the following:

Hillary was reelected in NY state with 67%. So she must have done something right for her state. Go ask the people of NY City what she did for the 9/11 victims. GW Bush and Karl Rove deleted millions of emails during an investigation into the firing of US attorneys. Those recycled old party line got us 20 million more people insured, unemployment rate of 5% and a Dow of 18000. And a vibrant auto industry. LMAO.

Since he ended his response with LMAO, I thought I'd offer him something else to laugh his a.. off.

Here is my reply :

Yes, Comrade, the people have spoken and agree with the Party.

In the state of New York, there are 5,792,497 registered Democrat voters and 2731688 registered Republican voters, a total of 8524185 registered voters.

With Democrats consisting of 67.9% of total registered voters and Republican consisting of 32% of total registered voters, and Hillary Clinton (a Democrat) receiving 67% of the total votes cast, yes, comrade, Hillary Clinton must have been re-elected because she did a fantastic job as a senator and not because the electorate voted along party lines.

And, Yes, comrade, 9/11 legislation and programs were due to the hard work of Hillary Clinton and not because the nation came together in support of the 9/11 victims.

Yes, Comrade, the bad actions of a politician is acceptable when other politicians did the bad actions as well. And yes, comrade, defending Hillary Clinton's deleting of her e-mail messages despite NOT being mentioned in prior discussion is a valid argument for something.

Yes, Comrade, forcing millennials, who are steeped in school loan debt, to buy health insurance, so that the sick and elderly can be covered, is not a new tax on the cash-strapped millennials, many of whom choose to pay the penalty in lieu of paying for premiums they can ill afford.

Yes, Comrade, being able to say that we are now covering 20 million more people with health insurance is a much higher priority than making sure that the deductible is not so high that the insured chooses not to use his/her coverage because he/she can't pay the deductible.

Yes, Comrade, it is a mere technicality that the 5% unemployment rate is due to people dropping out of the job market, and not because they actually found jobs.

Yes, Comrade, the average Joes, who are barely getting by without any substantial rise in their income for a decade, find solace in the rocketing stock prices, allowing fat cat Wall Street traders to continue their extravagant lifestyle after their bungling crashed the market and had to be bailed out.

Finally, yes, Comrade, it is the policies of the current administration that fueled the rise in auto sales and not the fact that most car owners had held on to their car for almost a decade and needed to buy new ones before their old ones died.

Let's examine Hillary Clinton's Experience

2016-10-17T22:54:00.001-04:00

Hillary Clinton's supporters cite Hillary's decades of experience as her qualification for the office of the U.S. President.

Hillary Clinton served as First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, 1 1/2 terms as junior Senator from New York, and Secretary of State for President Obama' 1st term.

But what has she accomplished in these 4 posts?

As First Lady of Arkansas, she led a commission to reform public education. Today Arkansas' education system rank #41 in the nation.

As First Lady of the United States, she led a commission to reform the health system in the U.S. The commission's recommendation was so convoluted that no one was able to explain it. Congress on both sides of the aisle rejected it.

As senator, Hillary Clinton sponsored 3 bills that became law:

S.3145 - A bill to designate a portion of United States Route 20A, located in Orchard Park, New York, as the “Timothy J. Russert Highway”.

S.3613 - A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the “Major George Quamo Post Office Building”.

S.1241 - Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act

Not exactly earth shattering legislation.

As Secretary of state. Hillary Clinton, refused to provide extra security to the Benghazi Embassy when Ambassador Stevens asked repeatedly for it in the weeks leading up to the attack on the embassy, resulting in the death of the ambassador and several others.

For her convenience, Hillary Clinton choose to use unsecured devices to receive and send classified information while abroad. In doing so, she jeopardized the lives of covert agents and collaborators, through whom classified information is acquired, since access to such information is limited and it would be easy for targeted governments or groups to identify the informant.

With Hillary Clinton as President, potential collaborators would be very reluctant to cooperate with us, hampering future intelligence gathering operations.

When confronted about her security violations, she insisted she didn't know that her actions violated U.S. espionage laws. In actuality, everyone with security clearance must be briefed on all security procedures and re-briefed once every year.

As a presidential candidate, she failed to present any new ideas of her own, recycling old party line policies that, after decades, have yet to make meaningful difference in the lives of Americans.

Having that type of experience is worse than having no experience at all. With the latter, at least one can hope for a better outcome.

Should Christians Vote for Donald Trump?

2016-10-17T22:32:00.002-04:00

View Fox News Eric Metaxas Interview Video here.

Christian Radio host, Eric Metaxas, argues that if Hillary is elected, the "balance of power" within the U.S. Supreme Court will shift to the liberal side and that a change in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court would result in a shift in the character of our country. Thus, voting a despicable man into office is a justifiable evil.

This view is shared by many Christian voters who are sticking by Donald Trump.

Have they truly thought this proposition over? Or have they been coasting on "Christian" hot button topics for too long?

This country's character has already shifted. Changing the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to shift the character of our country back.

Even if Republicans take over the White House, retain majority of Congress, and appoints conservative judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, is that really going to change the character of the country?

Millennials make up a third of the electorate and they lean towards the left. Forcing conservative views on them is just going to push them farther left.

The reason for the shift is due to American Christians not engaging in the lives of non-believers but instead cloistering themselves into "Christian" enclaves. If you are a Christian, ask yourselves this question: How much time in one week have you spent with non-Christian friends? How many non-Christian friends do you have?

Jesus came to write God's law onto hearts, not on tablets of stone.

Writing the law into hearts requires engagement and love, winning hearts, one person at a time.

Jesus walked, talked, and dined with Tax collectors and whores. And through this engagement, He built his church.

If we truly want to affect national morality, each of us need invest our lives in our neighbors, love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Relying on elections to steer our national morality runs counter to the example that Jesus set. Jesus did not come and topple the Roman government.

Yet, the American Church continues to insist on the legistlative approach to turning our country around.

Consider this: American Christians have invested enourmous sums of money and personal energy on "Christian" hot button issues for decades and what is the outcome? Has the Christian world view become more relevant to the average American?

Elections are for electing people who can effectively govern not about steering the national morality.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

Elect the candidate who can best govern and invest our lives to loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind and loving our neighbor as ourselves so that their hearts may be opened.

What Does Life in Christ Look Like?

2013-01-25T08:44:00.001-05:00

Having grown up within the evangelical Christian community, I've heard the gospel message presented more times than I can count. While I whole-heartedly believe in the Gospel message, I'm often troubled by the way it is presented.

Too often, the unbeliever/seeker is presented with the impression that if one accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Savior, all his/her woes will be gone and his/her life would be trouble-free.

While the immediate aftermath of the new believer's conversion is a sudden lifting of the guilt and shame of past and present sins, that sense of freedom is short-lived. There will always be the new challenges of this new life in Christ.

When my friend Marc posted the following question, on-line, I saw it as an opportunity to start this discussion.

Here is what Marc posted:

Jesus followers -- what does being in a relationship with Him look like in your life today? BTW -- not a rhetorical question.

Here is my response:

If someone tells you that it's a trouble-free life and filled with the fragrant of roses, he/she has either just become a believer or he/she is shoveling out something more than just snow! This baby is about taking you out of you comfort zone and not about leaving you sitting nice and snug in your crib. This baby is about teaching you one lesson over and over and over again, each and every day for the rest of your life. That lesson being:

ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 4:13

πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντι με.

Philippians 4:13

I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

And every day, He'll find a crevice of holdout in your heart where you'll need to learn this lesson.

So, brothers and sisters, hang on to your handle bars and wait for the roller coaster car to take you on one plunge after another. That handle bar being:

ΙΑΚΩΒΟΥ 1:2-4

Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, ἀδελφοί μου, ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν. ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι.

James 1:2-4

Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

You can consider it pure joy or you can consider it pure terror. Take your pick.

And if your cart ain't rocking, you better check to see who's driving the train (you or Him) or even if you are on the train.

Pigtown Homecoming

2009-06-07T15:11:00.003-04:00

(I actually wrote this piece a very long time ago and posted it on a different web site. I'm moving it here as part of my effort to consolidate my stuff.)

In southwest Baltimore, a couple of blocks from the shiny Inner Harbor and the pristine new baseball park at Camden Yard, is an area known as Pigtown. The name came from the days when they drove the pigs through the streets to the slaughterhouses. The slaughterhouses are gone, now, and with them, the pigs, but the name lives on.

Most of its residents are poor lower and lower-middle income families. Many families have lived here for generations, since the days of the slaughterhouses. Often, grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren, live within a couple of blocks of each other. Sometimes, three or four generations are packed into the same row house.

In the summer, the windows are always open, as if gasping for breath. The electric fans rattle at a constant frequency. But they seem to provide little relief to these un-air conditioned brick ovens.

From one window, a baby's scream competes with the hip-hop beat from a boom box. They are punctuated by the occasional "Shut jo mouth, 'Nessa! Momma had just enough of that." A slap silences the scream, but only temporarily. After a few seconds, the scream resumes.

From the window, next door, a male voice and a female voice shout at each other. The argument ends with a slamming of the back door accompanied by the repeated banging of the screen door.

The banging ricochets between the rows and rows of houses. It starts a chain reaction of barking stray dogs and screeching stray cats. Their howls zigzag through the neighborhood.

Washington Boulevard runs through the middle of Pigtown. There, the commerce is conducted by a few mom and pop shops. With sparse shelves and few customers, daily survival is always a wonder. In the cash registers, food stamps outnumber real U.S. currency.

Once, every month, I follow the alleys through Pigtown until I pop up on Washington Boulevard. Just off Washington Boulevard, in a strip mall next to the B&O Railroad Museum, is Diggable Styles.

Diggable Styles is a combination hair and nail salon. It has two shampoo bowl seats, four styling seats, two hair drying seats, and a nail care table. All the equipment look new.

Compare to its peers in the neighborhood, Diggable Styles is a relatively successful shop. It has had its share of bad times but somehow, it manages to pull through. In the desolate economic landscape, it stands in defiance of poverty.

Today, Jacki is the hairstylist on duty. As I step into the shop for my monthly hair cut, Jacki is talking up a storm. "When Ms. Mammy came in, she wanted...blah blah blah"

The manicurist smiles and nods. The two customers listen, without any interjection. I sit down and join her audience.

Suddenly, Jacki stops. She notices a couple entering a car parked outside the shop. Jacki shouts, "Tony left, yet? Tony better not leave without coming by here. I promised him a special cut, so he better not leave without coming by here."

The couple nods, waves their hand, and drives off.

Jacki returned to her monologue, "Hmmm, Hmmm, Hmmm... Such a shame! A real crying shame what they did to him. Tony's a good boy."

Jacki turns to the manicurist, "Remember when Tony was little?"

The manicurist smiles and nods.

"Remember when his mama used to ask him, 'What yo name? What yo name? Is yo name Shit? Yo name's Shit, ain't it?"

The manicurist laughs, "Yes, and little Tony would say, 'No, Ma'am! My name is "Mark Anthony Wilson, the Third.' Then, he'll point in the air."

Both the manicurist and the hair stylist breaks into several minutes of laughter.

"Yes, it's a crying shame what they did to him."

The mood is solemn, again.

"Ju know his mama's a dope addict, don't you? Spent half her life in jail. They finally had to take him away from her. Sent him down to Florida to live with his aunt."

"After all that, he still loves his mama. Every time he comes back to visit, he's begging his mama to leave here to start her life over, down there. After all those times she called him "Shit", he still loves her. Tony's such a good boy."

"Ju know that Tony started college, this fall, don't ju? Did good in school and made it to college! That makes it a bigger shame."

The manicurist nods.

"He came back, this week, to visit his mama over school break... Hmmm, Hmmm, Hmmm!" Jacki shakes her head.

"Answers a knock on his mama's do... Hmmm, Hmmm, Hmmm!" Jacki shakes her head, again. This time, speckles of tear dot her cheek.

"When he opened the do, they shot him. Didn't even know who they were. Suppose to be for his cousin, Leroy. But, Tony answered the do. Shouldn't have answer the do without looking out the window first. Guess Tony got too use to living in Florida."

Jacki stops for a moment.

"Now, he's paralyzed from the neck down."

Jacki is quiet again. For the first time at Diggable Styles, I receive my hair cut in silence.

As I pay for my cut, Jacki breaks the silence, "He'll survive. Tony's a good boy. He'll make it."

"He'll survive." Jacki repeats as if to convince herself.

I didn't know Tony, but I nod in agreement.

At the same time, I question myself, "Will Tony really survive? Will Diggable Styles survive?"

As I walk back down Washington Boulevard, I looked at the empty store fronts and the boarded houses. Urban decay has devoured half the neighborhood and is encroaching on Diggable Styles.

I want to scream, "Run Jacki! Run Diggable Styles! It got Tony and is now coming after you!"

The Invisible Man in Pigtown

2009-06-07T00:01:00.007-04:00

(I actually wrote this piece a very long time ago and posted it on a different web site. I'm moving it here as part of my effort to consolidate my stuff.)

There is an invisible man in Pigtown. You don't believe me? He's there, sitting on that bus stop bench on Washington Boulevard; you know, the block between Martin Luther King, Jr, Boulevard and Barre Street, right in front of the Farm Fresh Super Market. If you've ever bought a Big Mac meal at that McDonald's, you've seen him.

He wears an old black derby hat and a thick brown corduroy waist coat. He's usually sitting slumped down with the rim of his hat tilted down to cover his face.

He's invisible because no one wants to see him. As people approach the bench, their eyes turn away to avoid seeing him. People waiting for the bus, will sit on one of the other benches. They would either stare across the street to avoid eye contact or glance impatiently down the street hoping the bus would arrive soon.

He's not invisible to all people. Sometimes, little children see him as the walk by with their parents. If a child stares too long, the parent would yank the child's arm to turn him or her away. In a hush voice, the parent would tell the child, "It's not nice to stare at people."

William isn't really physically invisible, of course. But, he might as well be. William is homeless.

William hasn't always been homeless. For years, he had worked on the loading docks in one of the big warehouses at the harbor. He lost his job when the warehouses were replaced by the swank Inner Harbor shopping pavilions. Afterward, he drifted from job to job. Eventually, age took its toll and William lost his ability to lift heavy objects. Virtually, illiterate, William's job prospects dwindled to none and he found himself on the streets.

One bright sunny Sunday, I ran across William on the bus stop bench. I had just come out of the McDonald's with my Big Mac Meal. It was such a gorgeous day and I didn't want to eat my lunch inside. Evidently, everyone else had the same idea. The only outside seat left was the bus bench where William was sitting. William was sitting there by himself. No one wanted to sit next to him.

Redundantly, I sat next to William. He looked so hungry. I immediately turned away, hoping to erase the image of the hungry man from my mind. It wouldn't go away. As I opened my paper bag, I took another glance at William. He looked so hungry. My internal guilt engine sprang into overdrive.

"Hey, would you like something to eat? Here, you can have this and I can get another."

William nods and accepted my Big Mac Meal.

When I came back with another Big Mac Meal, we ate in silence.

I tried to initiate a conversation but William wouldn't say a word. He responded by shaking his head for no and nodding his head for yes. He wouldn't respond to questions which require answers beyond Yes and No.

When we finished and I started to get up to go, William grabbed my arm. Slowly, he searched for the word in his memory. Then, William softly said, "Thanks." And let my arm loose.

The following week, I came back to check on William and again we had lunch together in silence. After several weeks of Sunday lunches, we finally exchanged names.

Slowly, William regained his ability to carry on a conversation. There were weeks in which he initiated the conversation. William was invisible no more.

One Sunday, William and I went to a Kentucky Fried Chicken for lunch. Our conversation was especially lively because William was hired, that week, to do janitorial work.

As we entered the fast food restaurant, the manager of the restaurant stepped in front of William.

"If you are panhandling, you'll have to stay outside. You can do that out there in the parking lot, but not in here."

I quickly stepped in and explained that William was with me. But it was too late.

William ate in silence that day. William is once again the invisible man.

James 3:3-12

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt£ water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

The Federal Bailout Debacle

2009-03-05T01:27:00.010-05:00

My blood pressure continued to escalate as I watched the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and the U.S. Congress mishandle the global economic crisis. We've elected the Three Stooges to manage our economy.

When the "credit crunch" occurred, the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress bailed out arbitrarily selected failing investment banks (of which Lehman Brothers was not one). What was the reason for the bailout? How would the bailout alleviate the "credit crunch"? Why were some of the investment banks bailed out and not others? It's as if these Bozos didn't know what to do and randomly picked some things to do because doing something is better than doing nothing. In the end, we are $700 billion in the hole with nothing to show for it.

If they really wanted to alleviate the "credit crunch", they should have lent the money directly to those in the economy that needed the credit. The loans could be administered by local lending institutions for a nominal fee. The qualifications and conditions for the loans could be defined to minimize risk while maximizing liquidity in the credit market.

If there were no bailout for the investment banks, they would have been very motivated to sort out the "toxic assets" from the healthy ones and start down the road towards recovery. Now, with the federal bailouts in their pockets, these bankers are still sitting on their derriere waiting for some miracle to happen and we still don't know which loan packages are toxic and which ones are healthy. Yet, the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress want to throw away more money at these clowns.

On top of that, the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress want to do the same with the auto industry. Why shouldn't GM and Chrysler be allowed to fail? (Ford, during the congressional hearings, said that they didn't need the bailout but came along for the handout because GM and Chrysler were doing so.) Let GM and Chrysler file for Chapter 11 and reorganize, just like any other businesses that are in trouble.

The problem is that the U.S. federal government wants to prop up failing private businesses because they are perceived to be "too big to fail". There is not such thing as a business that is "too big to fail"!!!!!

A healthy free market demands that bad businesses fail and good businesses thrive on their own, irregardless of how large they are. A subsidized bad business is simply a cancer in our economy, sucking resources away from the healthy part of the economy.

There is, however, an ever more fundamental problem with our public policy, a broader problem than just our economic problem. It stems from the very character of the American pioneering spirit.

American public policy has always been to overcome the natural flow instead of working with the natural flow. We deem one part of the natural cycle to be bad and the other part of the cycle good; then we try to overcome the part of the natural cycle that we deem to be bad. Unfortunately, we really don't overcome that part of the natural cycle, we simply put it off. And when we do, the part, that we deem to be bad, accumulates until it breaks the dam.

e.g., Nature has cycles, a part of which has forest fires and the other part doesn't. We deem forest fires to be bad and we proceed to put out every forest fire that comes along. Unfortunately, when we do so, the undergrowth starts to accumulate and accumulate. At a certain point, the undergrowth accumulates so much that, when the next forest fire comes along, the fire is unmanageable because there is so much undergrowth.

Forest fires are not bad nor are they good. They are just a part of the natural self corrective process.

Why don't we stop trying to overcome the natural cycles of forest fires and instead allow the forest fires to happen so that the undergrowth does not accumulate so much that the forest fires become unmanageable? Why don't we stop people from building in those forest fire zones or at least impose more strict fire code for buildings in the forest file zones?

e.g., In preparation for hurricanes, we built dikes (levees) to prevent the hurricane flood water from overflowing into communities along the Mississippi River. Inevitably, the flood water would overcome the dikes (levees), ether by rising above them or by breaking them.

Why don't we stop trying to hold back the natural flow? Why don't we stop wasting money on building dikes (levees)? Why don't we, instead, accommodate the natural flow? Why don't we, instead, change our building codes for the areas in the hurricane zone? Require that buildings be elevated (perhaps on stilts) above the maximum expected flood level? Require them to be aerodynamics, allowing the hurricane wind to blow by the buildings.

We do the same with our economy. We deem the economic growth periods to be good and the periods of economic downturn to be bad. So we try to prolong the growth periods and extinguish the downturns.

Neither are good nor are they bad. They are both part of the natural cycle.

The economic growth periods are good because we make money. However, they also bad because, in the growth periods, businesses invest in riskier ventures and more number of risky ventures because these investments will yield much higher returns if successful. (They assume that their profit, in good economic times, will cover their losses in the riskier ventures.)

The economic downturns are bad because we don't make as much money. However, it's also good because it puts fear into the businesses that invest in risky businesses. The downturns rein them in from overconfidence in risky ventures.

So when the U.S. Federal government extends the growth period too long, businesses become dunk with confidence in risky ventures. The risks that they take become outrageous and the number of risks that they take becomes outrageous.

It is this public policy that got us here in this massive global economic mess. Yet, the Obama administration and the U. S. Congress insist on continuing to apply this very bad public policy by bailing out bad businesses, in essence, giving the green light to continue exercising bad business practices.

We need to put the fear back into businesses that don't seem to care if they are running their businesses well or not. We need to take away their safety net. A bailout is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

Let's replace this very bad public policy with a sound one. We need to allow the natural business cycle to occur. Do not prolong growth periods. Do not hold back downturns. Instead, we need to accumulate a rainy day fund during the growth periods. When the downturns come, the government will have the resources to provide unemployment benefits for those who are effected by the downturns. The unemployment benefits will include not only cost of living expenses but also tuition for worker retraining. (Economic downturns are usually the result of shifts in the economy requiring workers to move from one segment of the economy to another.)

We need to stop trying to suppress the natural cycle and instead accommodate the natural cycle.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Go read Genesis 41 to see the public policy that God recommended (through Joseph) to deal with the economic cycle (time of abundance and time of famine).

Business Idea Number 1: All You Can Eat Mexican Food Buffet Restaurant

2009-02-28T17:44:00.005-05:00

With the economy doing so badly and with so many businesses filing Chapter 11, I started thinking about potentially successful business ideas. This one came to me as my brother and me were eating at an "all you can eat" Chinese food buffet restaurant.

Why isn't there any "all you can eat" Mexican food buffet restaurant? People like all you can eat buffer restaurants (my brother and I regularly eat at two different "all you can eat" Chinese food buffet restaurants and they are always packed.) and people like Mexican/TexMex/Southwest food. An "all you can eat" Mexican food buffet restaurant would be a winner!

It'll have

1) a taco bar - You can make your own tacos or taco salads with whatever ingredient you like. If you like sour cream, you can have sour cream; if you are lactose-intolerant, you can leave out the sour cream. With a taco bar, you are not confined to eating whatever the restaurant defined to be a taco. (I like chipotle sauce on mine and when I ask for it, waiter/waitresses are constantly rolling their eyes as if to say "Why do you have to be difficult!")

2) a fajitas grill - You can make your own fajitas with freshly grilled steak strips, chicken strips, tuna strips, shrimp, or longaniza. For vegetarians, there would be grilled eggplant and zucchini.

3) a soup bar - I love Mexican soups but for some reason, the Mexican restaurants, where I eat, don't seem to have a large selection of soups. The soup bar should have, at least, chili (beef and just veggies), tortilla soup (beef, chicken, and just veggies) albondigas, posole stew (pork and chicken), Mexican shrimp soup, and Mexican vegetable soup.

4) a fruit / fruit shake bar - Why don't most restaurants serve a large variety of tropical fruits like guavas, mangos, papaya, passion fruit , and dates. They are common in supermarkets; why aren't they common in restaurants.

5) a dessert bar with someone to cook fried ice cream on request - what more is there to be said about that.

I intentionally omitted a lot of food that are expected to be served in a Mexican restaurants (like burritos, chimichangas, tamales, etc.). Because, it's an "all you can eat" buffet; the profit must be made on volume and not on margin. To increase volume without increasing cost, the food prep time must be short. So I limited the food list to very popular food items very short food prep time.

Such a restaurant will be successful because

1) The startup cost is low (somewhere between a moderate priced restaurant and a carry out). Start with a closed supermarket. Add a kitchen for basic food prep and grilling. Convert rest of the space to dining area.

2) The required skill of the staff is low (with the exception of the fried ice cream, there's no fancy cooking, just cleaning, cutting, mixing, boiling, and grilling)

3) Very little marketing is required. The two very popular "all you can eat" Chinese food buffet restaurants, where my brother and I frequently eat, get most of their customers by word of mouth recommendations. (If you build it, they will come!) Of course, the restaurant would have to be at a location with a high traffic volume.

Why the U.S. Presidential Candidates' Positions on Energy Independence Don't Make Sense

2008-10-29T12:27:00.005-04:00

Many of you have asked about for whom I'm planning vote in the U.S. Presidential election. The truth is that I don't like my choices and there's a great likelihood that I, for first time since I was old enough to vote, may not vote in the U. S. Presidential election. (I'm still going to the poll; there're other races and local initiatives for which I will vote.) My problem with both candidates is that neither understands the issues at all.

For example, both are pushing for energy independence. They only differ in how to achieve it. They assume that energy independence is a good thing.

While energy independence may sound good (a result of American cultural attitude towards independence from anything), is it, really?

The reason, that we go to the global market for obtaining resources, is that it allows us to choose from a large number of producers to find the lowest price. Energy independence means that we restrict our choice to only domestic producers who may or may not have low prices. With a smaller pool of producers, there is less market competition and will result in higher energy prices. That's a pretty stupid result.

The second problem with trying to achieve energy independence is that it's impossible. We have a market economy. In a market economy, resources, products, and services move freely; we can't keep energy from flowing in or out of the country. The electrical grid, in the U.S., is connected to the Canadian electrical grid and to the Mexican electrical grid. American utilities, at the same time, import and export electricity from/to Canada and Mexico. Exxon Mobile, at the same time, imports and exports diesel fuel from/to other countries. Resources, products, and services are constantly flowing to wherever the price is higher. Most importantly, the U.S. economy benefits heavily on this free exchange. If the U.S. government shuts it down, our economy will die.

The two presidential candidates' reason for pursuing energy independence is just as stupid. They insisted that we need energy independence because we don't want our money going to people who may fund terrorists. They failed to mention that we import half of the crude oil that we consume and most of which comes from Canada and Mexico. We certainly don't expect Canadian and Mexican oil profits going to terrorists.

Only sixteen percent of it actually comes from the middle east. But even if all the crude oil, that we import, comes from the middle east, would we really be depriving the middle eastern countries of profit if we don't import from them? Would they not readily find other buyers? Would they not continue to profit from their oil export even if they don't export to us? Need I mention that the People's Republic of China is constantly moving into markets in which the United States deemed to be unsavory?

Both candidate propose shifting from imported oil to "renewable" "green" energy. All "renewable" "green" energy, with the exception of geothermal, is solar energy. e.g., Wind energy comes from the sun heating air in one location causing it to move to a cooler location. Hydro-electric energy comes from the sun evaporating water from an location of lower elevation and raining/snowing on an area of higher elevation. Bio-fuel comes from the sun light being turned into organically stored energy through photosynthesis. Even petro-energy is the solar energy since it comes from organically stored energy. So what's the problem?

"Renewable" "green" energy is insufficient to supply all our energy needs. Only a tiny portion of the light emitted by our sun is radiated in the direction of the earth. Of the portion that is radiated towards earth, only one billionth of that energy actually reaches earth. Of the solar energy that actually reaches the earth, only a portion is not filtered by the earth atmosphere. (It's a good thing; otherwise we would be exposed to a lot of harmful radiation. Think about what would happen to our skin cancer rate if the earth's atmosphere doesn't filter out the harmful radiation.)

Consider this. The earth has been storing up solar energy, in the form of petro-energy, for millions of years. Within a century, we've almost sucked it dry.

One of the most ridiculous "renewable" "green" energy policies is the U.S. government's backing of ethanol. More energy is used to produce (plant, grow, harvest, and distill the corn) and transport ethanol than the amount of energy that's actually in the ethanol. How does a net loss in energy going to help move the U.S. towards "energy independence"? Yet, not only does the U. S. Government subsidizes the production of ethanol but also forces us to buy it (as a mandated gasoline additive).

The truth is that "renewable" "green" would not be viable without government subsidies. And even with the subsidies, it's still more expensive.

Recently, my utility company offered its customers the opportunity to buy electricity produced using wind and solar energy. Unfortunately, the price of the alternative energy source is about ten percent greater than my regular electricity source.

As for geo-thermal energy, does anyone actually think it would be a good idea to put big honking pipes into the ground next to Old Faithful in the Yellowstone National Park? I'll be willing to agree to pipes next to Old Faithful on the day Ted Kennedy agrees to allowing windmills to be built on the waters off Nantucket.

Sadly, the so-called "green" energy solutions, backed by both U. S. Presidential candidates are not so "green".

For example, photo-voltaic cells (solar panels) are perceived to be environmentally friendly. However, the byproduct of manufacturing photo-voltaic cells (and all other semi-conductors) are drums and drums of very toxic chemicals (solvent with cyanide) that we have to store. The waste to energy ratio for photo-voltaic cells is far worst than that of today's nuclear reactors.

There are so-called "green" companies building massive solar collectors in the desert which would heat liquid filled pipes for driving electricity generating turbines. Don't tell me that these monstrosities will not disrupt the desert's eco-system.

In California, they call windmills "condor Cuisinarts". You can imagine what they do to endangered soaring birds like condors, falcons, eagles, and owls.

Hydro-electric dams kill migrating salmons. There is only one solution for our future energy need: Nuclear fusion. Unlike the process used in current nuclear reactors (nuclear fission), which produces radioactive waste, nuclear fusion combines two hydrogen atoms together to produce a helium atom (the gas used in party balloons).

We need to stop wasting our research money (our tax dollars) on energy solutions that will never fulfill our needs and concentrate on a solution that will. We need to put research money into nuclear fusion.

But even if we successfully switch our energy source away from petroleum based products, we will not be free of oil dependency until we change our agricultural policies. Currently, twenty percent of the oil that we use (domestic and imported) is for products used in farming. e.g. fertilizer, pesticide, etc.

These products are only necessary because our agricultural system is based on the industrial model of production: single-product farms. If the system moves to multiple-product farms with composting and field rotation, we would not need petroleum based chemicals like fertilizers.

For example, in Argentina, field usage rotates between free range cattle grazing and planting. When the cattle is done with the field, the field is fertile from the manure. When the planting and composting is done, the field is ready for grazing.

As you can see, neither candidate for U.S. President understands this issues. Unfortunately, as I examine their position on other issues, I found them to be just as clueless. I would call them "Dumb and Dumber" except I wouldn't know which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber.

The Sub-Prime Debacle

2008-09-26T18:11:00.005-04:00

I've been asked, several times within the past couple of days, what the current financial woe, facing our nation, is all about. Each time, I had been able to give a sufficient answer (as off the cuff answers go). But, with so much interest, I'd thought that it would beneficial if I were to put it down "on paper" in an organized coherent format.

So, here it is:

Long ago (when interest rates were high), a bank receives deposits from a large number of customers and makes pretty good profit by lending a portion of the deposited money. The bank can also borrow money from the Federal Reserve or from other banks and lend the borrowed money. However, they are required to keep a portion of their money available for withdrawal.

Once they reached the lending limit, they can't lend any more money. They have to wait for more deposits or for the loans to be repaid.

To overcome that hurdle, they, sometimes, sell some of their loans to other lending institutions. (Many of us have experienced it when we borrowed our mortgage from one bank and ended up paying it back to another firm.)

Then, came the sub-prime debacle.

It started with the banks trying to lend mortgages to low income customers. They made two major assumptions about the low-income borrowers and one major assumption about housing market.

1) The customer's income will rise with time. i.e., The interest rate on their mortgage can rise with time; the interest can start below the prime interest rate (the interest rate that the Federal Reserve charges the bank) and climb with time so that the money lost at the beginning of the loan can be recouped later on when the interest rates are higher.

2) When the loans are structured properly, only a small number of the low-income borrowers will default on their loan.

3) The values of the properties will continue to rise so that even if a borrower defaults, the bank can still make a profit from the sale of that property.

So, they issued loans to low-income customers that start at sub-prime interest rates and climb up with time (at reasonable rates). They, then, packaged these loans together and sold them as securities (like bonds) to investment firms. These packages were rated relatively low risk because only a few loans within a package were expected to be defaulted.

Once a package of loans is sold, the bank can use the proceeds to issue more loans.

The banks, failed to do one major thing. They did not disperse loans from the same region of the country into different loan packages so that an entire package of loan does not become worthless when a region of the country becomes economically depressed.

Well, guess what happened. As regions of the country became depressed and many people lost their jobs, whole packages of loans were being defaulted. When whole neighborhoods were being defaulted, the values of these properties took a dive.

Thus, all three assumptions became false because the banks failed to evenly distribute the risk.

At this point, everyone is still trying to determine which packages of loans are complete duds and which packages are healthy securities.

In the mean time, nobody is willing to buy or sell any of these packages. This stalemate resulted in the banks being redundant to issue more loans since they are near their lending limit.

Unfortunately, our economy runs on credit. The farmers borrow money to buy the seeds, fertilizer, etc. to grow their produce and repays the loans when they sell their produce. Manufacturing firms borrows money to produce new products and repays the loans when the products are sold. Oil companies borrow money to explore and drill for oil and gas and repays the loans when the oil and gas are sold.

So when the banks are not able to lend, the wheels of commerce stop turning. When the wheels of commerce stop turning, people loose their jobs.

What is Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke's plan?

1) Use 700 billion dollars to buy up the loan packages.

2) Weed out the bad loans and dispose of them (foreclosure)

3) When market calms, sell back healthy loan packages.

Are We Casting Stones?

2008-03-24T03:50:00.008-04:00

Someone posted a complaint about how Christians are always casting stones at others on the Christian discussion forums. While it may sound like a legitimate complaint, there were several problems with his assertion. Here is his original post:

Let him without sin cast the first stone

Why is that a lot of so called Christians only post topics that only reveals someone elses short comings? Havent we all sinned and come short of his glory or have God himself sent another Son besides Jesus into the world thats perfect and is without fault. Instead of us using the scriptures to help one another out of love we beat the hell out of others and tell them everything wrong they"re doing, like anyone that walks this earth have room to talk or judge. Its like they just study a bunch of scriptures, pushed Jesus out of his judgement seat, became jusdge themselves, and start condemning others to hell because they're sinners.

Its hard to find any true Christian in these groups because everyone is walking around with some Bible verses ready to judge and a pocket full of stones to throw. I guess there church dont care to hear them preach so they just come on myspace and feel free to reveal everyone elses sin.

Jesus is a friend to sinners and to the ones that the world and these so called churches rejected. I'm a sinner but yet Im saved by grace. As it stated in Philippians 3:9 " And being found in him not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness of God by faith."

I would love to hear your veiws on the topic.

The post assumes that because we are forgiven of all our sins, we no longer have to deal with sin.

Here is my reply:

Posting topics, to identify specific sins, does not necessarily constitute the casting of stones.

The casting of stone (literally) is capital punishment. It assumes that the sinner can not be redeemed and that society would be better off without this person.
Reiterating, what is right and what is wrong to an unsaved sinner, assumes that there is still a chance that the person can be redeemed.

The postings can also be for the edification of the Body of Christ. We may be saved, by grace, from having to pay the debt for our sin (death), it does not mean that we are to continue to sin.

Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If the saved sinner is not aware that he or she is sinning, the postings would alert the sinner of the problem. (DO NOT assume that every saved sinner knows about every sin.)

Even if the saved sinner is aware of that sin but is defiant and continues to sin, the Bible instructs us to try to turn him or her from the error of his/her way.

James 5:19-20
My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Yes, Jesus IS a friend of the sinner. But that does not mean the Jesus wants to see sinners (saved or not) continuing to waddle in their sin.

Is our ministry a ministry of hate or a ministry of reconciliation?

2008-03-17T02:08:00.003-04:00

Someone wrote the following several weeks ago.

We have all heard sermons on soul winning during which we are berated for not crying daily over the lost and then told we are to be broken hearted over the loss of the lowest, scummiest, God hating creatures on the planet. May I say word? BUNK!

We claim to be in an army. Where did you ever see a soldier cry over the death of an enemy soldier whose sworn duty was to kill him? There are people in this world who have given their lives to forward the devil's case and in the process damn millions of innocent souls to Hell. I have no compassion for them and no regret at their passing. I see it as one less soldier in the devil's army.

Do you think that U.S. soldiers wept and moaned at news of the deaths of Gen. Erwin Rommel or Ho Chi Minn? Rommel was a truly great soldier but he was on the wrong side! His death was a blessing to the allied cause.

But these fraudulent, over zealous, intimidating promoters of misguided compassion would have you crying over the death of people that hated God and His Book with everything they had. The Lord's cause benefits from these people going to their just desserts.

Am I off base? Check it out! Did the Lord Jesus Christ waste any of His time trying to win Herod to Himself in their only face-to-face meeting in Luke 23:6-9? No! Where was His "burden for souls"? Did God have compassion on the innocent prison guards of Acts 12:19? Nope! He stood by and let them be killed and go to Hell. Why? They were on the wrong side! Do you find the Apostle Peter or Paul weeping over the fate of Herod in Acts12:20-23? Never! But look at verse 24!

Here's the major problem with this misguided, possibly well meant, teaching. There is a great ruth to human love. You can love good people or you can love bad people but you cannot train your heart to love both.

What I mean is simply this: These same people who demand that you have to have compassion on sodomites and God-haters have no compassion on their fellow Christians who disagree with them in some way. They will gossip, lie and use all their influence to hurt a fellow Christian who they are mad at or view as a threat while at the same time they are demanding "compassion" for the God-haters. This is not right!

Some of you, in order to prove you are a compassionate person will bemoan the death of God-haters like Jean Dixon, Carl Sagan or Jacque Cousteau yet you will not hesitate to rip the throat out of your pastor or a fellow Christian who has angered you in some way. Why? Because you can't love them both. If you have chosen to exhibit false compassion for the God-haters you will not be able to find true compassion for those who are on God's side but disagree with you about something. You can love one or the other but you can't love them both.

I have placed myself unashamedly on God's side. If every God-hating atheist died tomorrow I would do back flips and praise God that the job of reaching the lost would now be easier. One of these days I'm going to hear that wicked Drs. Spock and Kevorkian have died to which I will respond with a hardy, "Praise God!" I didn't say that I have no compassion for the everyday lost common citizen who gets called every name in the Book by some overzealous street preachers. Them I care about. Them I'm trying to win. But I rejoice at the departure of those who deceive them (and you). They made their choice. Oh well!

Yet in all of this "lack of compassion" on my part I will have mercy on YOU if you disagree with me in some area. Their are preachers that I really don't care for. But they are saved! They are on God's side! I will not try to hurt or destroy them. (We call this "Grace". It takes legitimate compassion.) But if I am going to allow myself to love them I cannot find room to also love the devil's soldiers. Someone has to lose! I vote: the devil's soldiers.

Check yourself out. How many times have you hesitated to show any animosity for someone who openly works against God & the Bible yet you have not felt the least restriction about saying something that would damage a fellow Christian? You're the one whose messed up! Not me.

The vile college professors can go to their spiritual home!. Their misguided students I'll try to win. Every corrupting newspaper reporter can burn! But the guy that his lies deceive is going to get my heart felt efforts to win. Hollywood could sink into Hell today and I would praise God. But you who follow their indoctrination I will try to steer in the right direction. You can't love both!

Why don't you unload your pent up animosity on the queers, environmentalists, animal righters, Liberal judges and corp of devil's helpers, and show some compassion on your pastor, a preacher, a church member or a fellow Christian or just a lost common citizen who needs the truth and not say anything that will hurt them?

Mind you! We don't hurt people! We don't go shooting people or blowing them up. But we give them no quarter or mercy in our efforts to win the innocent lost. Let's lay off our brethren and vocally blast their brethren.

Some of you ought to get down on your knees and ask God to forgive you for the trouble you've caused in some church, while all that time you refused to say anything ugly about some movie star or sports figure. Change your ways! Exercise some mercy and compassion where it belongs! On God's people. The devil's crowd takes good care of their own. Let's not help them.

Did I make you mad? Have some compassion on me...or go hug a queer!

It really saddened me that there are Christians who actually feel this way. I originally started to write a response to counter each point that he made. But after praying about my response, it became appartent that the Lord just wanted me to post several scripture verses for him to read and over which to meditate.

Matthew 5:43-48
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Romans 12:17-21
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay, " says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 5:10-11
For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:16-18
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

Should Christians vote Republican or Democrat?

2008-01-17T23:43:00.000-05:00

I've been seeing many posts, in Christian discussion forums, advocating Christian voters to cast their votes based on the candidates' stance on abortion and homosexuality. Many of these posts are quite offensive. Even those posts, that are not offensive, I found to be not quite right.

Here is an example of one that is not offensive:

To start out, let me say that I in no way endorse a particular candidate or party or tell you how and who to vote for or support. What I can do is tell you what the Bible says about political issues and allow you to make a decision from there. In all actuality, few political issues are truly spiritual issues. As an example, personally, I prefer lower taxes. The Bible does not endorse low taxes, all it says is that we are to pay our taxes honestly (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 22:15-21). Taxes, and many other issues (social security, universal healthcare, education funding, prescription drugs, etc.) are not spiritual issues the Bible specifically addresses. As a result, Christians can in good conscience have disagreements on these issues.

An issue the Bible most definitely "takes sides" on is abortion. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God's active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty of someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman's right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). Therefore, I believe Christians should strongly support candidates who are pro-life.

Another issue which is most definitely Biblical is the issue of gay marriage. The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms possible (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage that God created to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:22-24). Endorsing gay marriage or even civil unions is basically giving "approval" of a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Gay marriage, then, is an issue Christians must consider when they evaluate a candidate.

The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). I believe this should apply to political leaders as well. If a politician is going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, he or she must have a basic morality on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So, if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, I believe we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.

No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not – the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (1 Peter 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them – we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world, but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party – monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).

Here's my reply:

Are you sure you are really concern with the morality of candidates/parties and not just with hot button topics like abortion and homosexuality?

I noticed that you mentioned abortion is wrong because it is murder however you did not mention capital punishment. Considering the number of convictions of capital punishment cases that had been found to be wrongful convictions, wouldn't the execution of the innocent be considered murder? Yet, you don't advocate legislation to ban capital punishment without DNA proof.

Is homosexuality more condemned by the Bible than adultery? Let's count the number of verses about adultery compared to that of homosexuality. Yet, you don't advocate the legislation to ban adultery.

Is homosexuality a greater threat to the family than divorce? I've been in youth ministry for over a decade and I have seen how it tears apart families and destroys teenagers' moral center. I don't think I've ever encountered a case of homosexuality tearing apart a family.

What about Jesus' teaching on divorce?

Mark 10:5-12

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Yet, you are not advocating the abolition of divorces.

While I agree with your position on abortion and homosexuality, I must say that your post looks like the talking points of certain special interest group within the Republican Party.

While I generally vote Republican, I, as a Christian, must say "Let's play fair."

A Personal Note

2008-01-12T23:32:00.000-05:00

Those of you, who are my friends in real life (i.e., not just through the virtual reality of the internet), know that my dad had a heart attack and passed away several years ago and that my mom had a stroke from the stress of my dad's passing. You also know that my mom's stoke caused her entire right side of her body to be paralyzed, because of which I've reduce my working hours to three days a week in order to take care of her.

On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, I work eight hours (during which a nursing tech takes care of my mom), and I watch my mom during the remaining sixteen hours. My mom's doctor appointments and therapy sessions are on Thursdays and Fridays. Saturdays, I do the shopping and other chores. Sundays, I watch my mom the whole day.

I had hoped that the Lord would have healed my mom by now but, for whatever reason, He has chosen to not do so despite my daily prayers for my mom's healing.

These past several years of twenty-four hour days are starting to take their toll and, these days, I'm starting to ask the Lord for reasons. It's especially tough since, before my mom's stroke, I had the opportunity to travel all over the world and now I'm confined within walls of my own home.

So each day, I cling to the opening verses from the Epistle of James.

James 1:2-4

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

It got tougher, a couple of weeks ago when I contracted a very bad case of the flu. It sapped most of the energy from my mind as well as my body. Though exhausted from the flu, I still have the responsibility of taking care of my mom.

I just put my mom to bed and have a little bit of time to pray and contemplate. And in this moment of stillness, I once again receive a greater appreciation for the love of the Lord.

I love my mom and, for her, I chose to put my life on hold and care for her. However, I love my mom because she, first, loved me.

Yes, these are tough times, but what is my trial compared with the suffering of Christ? How much greater is His love for us that He was willing to endure the agony of dying on the cross for a world that didn't love Him?

Tonight, I received a small portion of His answer, but just a small portion.

Philippians 3:10-11 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

I've yet to fully understand the "power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering".

Divorce Discussion Continues

2007-12-29T00:19:00.000-05:00

Several people responded to my blog entry concerning the topic of divorce. They noted the following statement that I made in that blog entry:

And asked that I clarify my stance on divorce.

My reply was that Jesus was very explicit concerning divorce.

Mark 10:5-12 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage. If one re-marries after divorce, one commits adultery.

They replied with the objections that I had been expecting. They cited two sets of verses which seem to allow remarriage after divorce under certain circumstances: Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

Matthew 5:32

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Many people believe that the first part of the verse gives the husband permission to divorce his wife and re-marry if she had committed fornication. However, Jesus never said that. Jesus was pointing out the consequences of divorcing one's wife. If a husband divorces his wife, he will cause her to commit adultery unless she is already an adulterer. If she is already an adulterer then her being an adulterer is not the husband's fault.

Unbelievably, those, citing this verse, consistently failed to reference the latter part of the verse: "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". Is that not clear enough? The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Many people pointed out that the word "widows", in verse 7, was translated from the original Greek word "chera" and that "chera" literally means "lacking a husband". They reasoned that the reference to "chera" includes not only widows but also divorcee. Thus, they concluded that the Apostle Paul was giving permission to divorcees to remarry if they burn with passion.

This literal translation of the original Greek word "chera" is simply bad translation. It does not account for how that word is normally used in the cultural context of the writer and his readers/audience. It refers to widows.

Otherwise, it is like saying that Mary, mother of Jesus, was not a virgin because the original Greek word, from which the word "virgin" was translated, also means little girl, concluding that Mary was a little girl and not a virgin since Mary was pregnant. That's simply a bad interpretation since Mary was old enough to marry (at least 12) and would not be viewed by as a little girl in that society.

The people who tried to use 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 as justification of re-marriage after divorce also failed to address the next two verses.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To interpret 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, as Paul giving permission for re-marriage after divorce, would cause verses 8-9 to contradict verses 10-11, the next two verses. The only way, for there to be no contradiction, is for the original Greek word "chera" to be interpreted as "widows" only.

One can not be formulating one's theology by cherry-picking only ambiguous verses and interpreting them to support one's view. There needs to be agreement among all the verses concerning the topic.

And the only way, there can be agreement between all these verses, is if one interprets the two ambiguous verses as I did and concludes that while there may be permissibility of divorce due to the hardness of man's heart, re-marriage after divorce is adultery.

However, I must reiterate that while God's standard is so high that it's unattainable, He does provide mercy.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Divorce

2007-12-17T05:30:00.000-05:00

According to Barna Research Group's 2004 poll, among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.

Barna also noted that he analyzed the data according to the ages at which survey respondents were divorced and the age at which those who were Christian accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. "The data suggest that relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior," he explained.

To be fair, Barna's survey showed that a larger portion of those, who are not born again Christians, co-habits, effectively, side-stepping marriage - and divorce - altogether.

Nevertheless, more than a third of Christian marriages end in divorce.

While the statistics did not surprise me, I was shocked and very saddened by the recent appearance of the cover story of Christianity Today entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce."

Even Time Magazine made a note of it in its November 5, 2007 issue in the article entitled "An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce?"

It's bad enough that more than a third of all Christian marriages end in divorce, now Christian leaders are altering their theology to accommodate this trend.

(I'm purposely not any mentioning prominent Christian leader who has or is planning to divorce.)

To be clear, I do believe that all sins, with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are forgivable. God will forgive us of adultery (in this case, adultery resulting from divorcing and marrying someone else). However, there's a major difference between asking for forgiveness for a sin and modifying theology to no longer recognize that act as a sin.

Need I remind us that the marriage relationship is the image that God gave us to describe His relationship with the Church? Need I remind us that adultery is the image that God gave us to describe the situation when we abandon Him to worship idols? If these are the images that God gave us, what would be the embracing of divorce?

Most importantly, how we view divorce is a reflection of how we view marriage. And if we no longer view marriage as a binding relationship, how would this view effect the health of our marriages?

Perhaps we all need to be reminded of what the scripture says about divorce.

Matthew 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3-10

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

And he answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

They say unto him, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

He saith unto them, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Mark 10:2-12

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, "What did Moses command you?

And they said, "Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Errata for Who is the Historical Santa Claus

2007-11-22T23:53:00.000-05:00

After posting my blog entry entitled "Who is the Historical Santa Claus", I've received the following response:

Nice summary--just a few additions--

Nicholas was born in Patara, a town not far to the west of Myra in Lycia, Asia Minor, now Turkey. Not in Italy.

A technical matter--houses in that time did not have chimneys (a common misunderstanding)--there would have been an opening in the roof for the fire.

Nicholas' remains were taken to Bari, Italy, in 1087, where a basilica was built over his crypt. There are many, many towns named for St. Nicholas -- often ports along coasts and rivers as sailors carried stories of him wherever they went. Chapels and churches were named for him, often in ports as Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors and seamen, as well as children, maidens, the falsely accused and many others.

For more, see www.stnicholascenter.org

Here's my reply:

Thank you for the information.

The reference that I used is incorrect about St. Nicholas' birth place. I should have check other references.

As for Nicholas' resting place, I dug a little deeper and found that it's a bit more complicated than simply one resting place for St. Nicholas. Everyone agrees that sailors originally stole St. Nicholas' remains from Myra and took them to Bari. However, there was, evidently, a lot of contention for his remains. It seems that people were literally stealing his remains and moving them to their city.

For instance, Venice claims to have most of Nicholas' remains and that Myra only has one of his arm.

The most bizarre claim is that Nicholas II, the Czar of Russia, donated the remains of St. Nicholas to St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York. And after the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, the church building was destroyed and the remains of the saints kept there were lost.

The bottom line is that I can neither confirm nor deny any claim of St. Nicholas' final resting place. It's all pretty bizarre to me that someone would actually rob a crypt of its dead remains.

The people who claim to have St. Nicholas' remain should open up their crypt and let forensic researchers figure out from DNA and whatever other tests to see who have a piece of St. Nicholas.

Who is the Historical Santa Claus?

2007-11-12T04:07:00.000-05:00

My post concerning Halloween led to a discussion on Christmas and Saint Nicholas. I was quite surprised to find out that many of my friends do not know who Saint Nicholas was. Oh sure, they recognized him as the guy who secretly gave gifts during Christmas but all the other details were completely off their mark. For instance, many thought that he was German.

Since my friends, who are usually knowledgeable of Christian issues, do not know who Saint Nicholas was, I am suspecting that it's probably true of the general public. So, I decided to post what I know (and double checked with reference literature).

The historical Saint Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra (in modern day Turkey but at the time was a Greek city; the city was mentioned in Acts 27). He lived during the 4th century. Although he was the Bishop of Myra, he was born in Italy.

His parents were wealthy. When his parents died and Nicholas received his inheritance, he gave it away to the poor.

During his lifetime, he was renowned for:

1) Defending the Christian faith; most particularly the intolerance of Arianism, a warped form Christian theology at the First Council of Nicaea

2) Intolerance of pagan religions and pagan artifacts; responsible for the destruction of several pagan temples including the Temple of Artemis.

3) Taking care of the poor

4) Defending the falsely accused

Many amazing deeds were attributed to him including rescuing sailors.

The most enduring is, of course, the secret giving of gifts. Evidently, there was a poor man who had three daughters but was unable to afford a proper dowry for them. In those days, it would have doomed them to not only remaining unmarried but would have to become prostitutes to support themselves. So Nicholas, on the nights before each daughter came "of age", would anonomously throw a purse of gold coins into their house. The first two times, he threw the purse through the window. The third time, the father decided to lie in wait to discover their benefactor. When Nicholas caught wind of the father's plan, he tossed the purse down the chimney, instead.

When the Asia Minor was invaded by Turks, at the beginning of the second millennium (long after Nicholas' death), Nicholas' remains were taken to a church in Germany. The town was renamed Nikolausberg.

Celebrating Halloween

2007-10-28T03:51:00.000-04:00

In the past several weeks, there has been a large number of new discussion threads concerning Halloween started in the Christian discussion forum. Most of the participants registered their disgust with the celebration of things associated with the occults. No one seems to recognize it as a Christian holiday.

(The following is taken from Wikipedia.)

The term Halloween comes from All Hallow Evening, i.e., eve of "All Hallows' Day" also known as All Saints' Day.

It was a day of religious festivities in various northern European Pagan traditions, until Popes Gregory III and Gregory IV moved the old Christian feast of All Saints' Day from May 13 to November 1.

Liturgically, the Church traditionally celebrated that day as the Vigil of All Saints, and, until 1970, a day of fasting as well. Like other vigils, it was celebrated on the previous day if it fell on a Sunday, although secular celebrations of the holiday remained on the 31st. The Vigil was suppressed in 1955, but was later restored in the post-Vatican II calendar.

In the early Church, Christians would celebrate the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ (known as the saint's "birth day") by serving an All-Night Vigil, and then celebrating the Eucharist over their tomb or place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighboring dioceses began to transfer relics, and to celebrate the feast days of specific martyrs in common. Frequently, a number of Christians would suffer martyrdom on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all.

A commemoration of "All Martyrs" began to be celebrated as early as the year 270, although no specific month or date are mentioned in existing records.

(Back to my comments)

Perhaps we should consider celebrating All Saints' Day as it was intended, in remembrance of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been martyred: Christian evangelists and new converts in Muslim countries, in communist China, in rural India.

Remember our Christian brothers and sisters in Sudan.

Remember the Korean Christians who were martyred in Afghanistan.

The Voice of the Martyrs

Associated Press Article about attacks on Christians in Turkey

BBC Article on Chinese Christians being tortured and killed

Time Magazine Article on Christian Martyrs in India

Dealing with Non-Believers

2007-10-14T03:57:00.002-04:00

I've been encountering some very distressing sentiment from within the Body of Christ. By no mean is the sentiment a majority opinion. However, I've encountered it enough times within the past several weeks that I felt compelled to respond to it. Often it is subtle but there has been times in which it was very overt.

Of what is it I am speaking? It is the sentiment that non-believers (whether atheists or believers of other religions) are to be treated as our adversary. The advocates, of this sentiment, were often engaged in a shouting match with non-believers.

That is, of course, very inappropriate. Satan and his hosts of fallen angles are our enemies, not non-believers. The non-believers are the battle grounds upon which our war, against the evil one, is waged.

The following is a prime example of this sentiment:

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST,

THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE IN REGARD TO ANY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

WHY WOULD PRIMITIVE MAN, "IN HIS PRIMITIVE THINKING," THINK OF HAVING RULES OF RIGHT AND WRONG? ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, SHOULDN'T THESE RANDOM THOUGHT BE A RANDOM BLAST OF ENERGY? ANYHOW, WHO TOLD PRIMITIVE MAN ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG?

WHO TOLD PRIMORDIAL SOUP ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG? HOW DID MONKEY-MAN'S INVENTIONS GO FROM A BASIC STICK TO RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY? THESE ARE SUCH SILLY QUESTIONS BUT I HAVE YET TO SEE AN EXPLANATION OF FACTS RATHER THAN SO RANDOM GUESS OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPEN.

IF ATHEISM IS SURE THEN WHY WOULD ANY ATHEIST FOLLOW THE RULES OF A CHRISTIANIZED STATE? WHY DO ATHEIST LISTEN AND REACT TO THE LAWS OF THE RELIGIOUS "KNOW NOTHINGS" OF THE PAST? IT IS PROVEN THAT "EVERY CULTURE OF THE PAST" HAD ITS OWN RELIGION BUT AMERICA WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. HOW TRAGIC. HERE ARE SOME KEY NOTES ON THE DUTIES OF THE ATHEIST.

1. ATHEISTS SHOULD GO OUT AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE!

THIS IS A RELIGIOUS RULE RIGHT? IT'S NOT THE ATHEISTIC WAY TO BELIEVE RELIGIONS. NEVER MIND IF THAT PERSON HAS LOVED ONES.

2. ATHEISTS SHOULD COMMIT ADULTERY!

AGAIN, ANOTHER RELIGIOUS RULE, BUT NOT ATHEISTIC TO HEED THIS WARNING.

WHO CARES IF YOU RUIN A FAMILY OF FOUR AND THE CHILDREN GETS TO SEE THEIR FATHER OR MOTHER ONLY ON THE WEEKENDS. JUST AS LONG AS YOU CAN SLEEP WITH YOUR BOSS RIGHT?

3. ATHEISTS SHOULD STEAL!

YEP, A RELIGIOUS RULE NOT TO DO SO, BUT ACCORDING TO ATHEISM, GOD DOESN'T EXIST. AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST" THEN IT SHOULD BE OK TO GO TO A BANK AND TAKE EVERY CENT OF CURRENCY THEY HAVE. "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST," THEN HIS WORDS DON'T EXIST.

IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST THEN PERFORM YOUR DUTY AND STOP LISTENING TO THE WORDS OF MY GOD!

Here is my response.

I am a Christian but I can provide the atheist's counter to your argument.

The three rules that you mentioned (don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal) are part of the social contract: Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.

It does not require God to tell us to do so, for us to know that we need to do so, in order for those of us, who live within a society to, co-exist peacefully.

An atheist would also remind you that Christianity does not have exclusive claim to the so-called Golden Rule. You'll find the same ethic in religions ranging from polytheist religions like Hinduism and Buddhism to monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

What is the difference, between all the religions, is how one deals with the violation of the golden rule ethics.

At this point I'll put back on my Christian hat and remind you that the foundation of the Christian faith is

Romans 3:22-24

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

All of us are sinners. It is purely by the grace of God that we are saved. Before we were saved, all of us were in the same boat as the atheist, doomed to eternal damnation and unable to hear the word of God. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that allow us to see the truth.

You can shout at atheists as loudly as you like and they would never hear you for they do not have the indwelling the Holy Spirit. If you truly want to see them saved, I'd suggest that you do two things:

1) Get down on your knees and pray for their salvation.

2) Love them! Love them as Jesus would them.

p.s., BTW, The commandment is not "Don't kill". The commandment is "Don't commit murder." There is a difference. Murder is unjustified killing. There are justified killing such as self defense, the defense of the innocent, etc.

Is God Fair?

2007-09-14T07:09:00.000-04:00

Some one posted the following in one of the Christian discussion forums:

The Son of Sam killer (David Berkowitz) supposedly became saved in prison and has been exhibiting very good behavior. It is entirely possible that ol' Dave Berkowitz may join us in heaven with the Father, while his victims rot in hell. Unfair?

The person, who posted the above, answered it with:

yeah, a little.. unjust? no. Why? Because God can do whatever he wants. He's God.

I was not happy with this answer. It leaves the reader with the impression that God is not fair and that the only reason that God is just is because He makes up the rules and He can bend the rules anyway He likes to accommodate His whim.

This perspective runs counter to the Christian faith. The Christian doctrine is emphatic about the absolutism of God's standard.

The absolutism of God's standard is why there is the necessity of grace.

It is wrong to sin and the penalty of sin is death. But all of us sin. Because God loves us and doesn't want us to perish, He can either change His mind and say, it is no longer wrong to sin (change His standard) or He can give forgiveness to whoever sins and accepts His forgiveness (absolutism of His standard and grace).

God chose to maintain the absolutism of His standard and dispense grace by sending His Son, Jesus the Christ, to die, in our stead, for our sin.

So, how can God saving Berkowitz while condemning his victims (who did not accept God's forgivenes) be fair?

Jesus answered the question of fairness in the "Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" (Mathew 20:1-15) in which the landowner goes out and hires workers with the promise to pay a denarius for the day. He hired workers at the beginning of the day and continues to hire workers throughout the day. At the end of the day, everyone was paid a denarius. When questioned about the fairness of the same wage for a disparate amount of work, the owner answered:

"Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"

In the case of the Lord dispensing grace, the agreement is that the Lord promised forgiveness to anyone who asks. It does not matter if someone "sinned greater" than others. If the Lord fulfills His promise, He is both just and fair. If someone is forgiven more than others, the Lord is being just, fair, and generous.

What would be unfair is if God saves someone who did not repent and/or did not ask for forgiveness.

Categorizing Churches

2007-09-02T05:04:00.000-04:00

Do denominations really make that much of a difference? Within the Catholic church, there's a wide array of local parishes that worship as differently as night and day. We can say the same for many of the Protestant denominations like the United Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.

I have a theory:

The real distinctions between local parishes/congregations, irregardless of denomination, is that they can be categorized into one of three different groups: fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic.

Fundamentalists focus on adhering to the fundamentals of the faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Basically, it's yielding to the call of the Father to pursue holiness.

Evangelicals focus on completing the Great Commission that Jesus commanded the disciples before His ascension.

Charismatics focus on the being moved by the Holy Spirit.

It's really a focus on the call of one of the three God Head.

Of course, no local parish/congregation is completely Fundamentalist or completely Evangelical or completely Charismatic.

It's more of a spectrum within a triangle in which each corner of the triangle represents one of the far end of spectrum: Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Charismatic. And each local parish/congregation falls somewhere within the triangle.

A well balanced parish/congregation would fall smack in the middle of the triangle.

It's just a theory. I don't have any Biblical reference to back it up.

Dissecting Morality

2007-08-25T01:49:00.002-04:00

I had been involved in a discussion concerning morality. In that discussion, I identified two ways of applying morality: moral absolutism and moral relativism. At that point someone challenged me to define morality and these two ways of applying morality.

Here is my answer:

Until recently, research in cognitive studies have been based on the assumption that decision making is a self-interest utilitarian process. Choice is based on what best serves our goal.

Recently, studies by Marc Hauser, a professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University, point to non-utilitarian aspects of the decision making process.

In his studies, subjects were presented with scenarios like the runaway trolley scenarios that I've previously posted in the "life crisis" forum.

A trolley looses its brakes and is rolling out of control down a hill. It is about to hit five people who can not get out of the way. Between the trolley and the five people is a track switch. If the trolley is switched to the alternate track, it would hit only one person. Is it acceptable to switch the track so that the trolley hits only one person?

Almost everyone answer the question with "yes". Hitting one person is better than hitting five.

Then, the subjects were given a new scenario:

There is no switch between the trolley and the five people. However, there is a person large enough to stop the trolley if pushed in front of the trolley. Is it acceptable to push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five people?

Almost everyone answered the question "no".

The results were consistent with people of varying religious belief, culture, ethnicity, age group, and social-economic class.

Occasionally, someone may answer yes for both. However, when dug deeper, the results are consistent with the norm.

e.g., Hauser's father is a medical doctor who is a stoic thinker. His initial response was yes for both since both scenarios resulted in saving five lives instead of one. So Hauser posed a scenario closer to home (in this case closer to work).

You have five patients who are in need of organ transplants but was unable to find matching donors. A healthy person with perfect match for all five patients. Would you sacrifice the life of the healthy donor to save the lives of the five?

His answer is, "Of course, not!"

Then, how can you push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five?

With that, Hauser's father changes his position.

Both scenario involves sacrificing one life for five, yet the latter is unacceptable. The choice made is not based on utilitarian decision making.

No only that, it is not a Pavlovian behavior. i.e., It's not a learned behavior which can be positively or negatively re-enforced. Neither choice to save the five people yielded a more favorable result. This non-utilitarian behavior is not learned but biologically hard-wired.

Hauser describes the non-utilitarian process as a hard-wired moral brake against the self-interest utilitarian decision making engine.

Another example of non-utilitarian response is the test of the self interest economy, which I posted, previously on the "life crisis" forum, as "The Greed Game".

According to Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", in a free market economy, the self interests of all traders would dictate the distribution of all resources.

In Professor Hauser's studies, subjects were given the roles of donor or recipient. Each donor was given a sum of money, out of which he or she must offer a portion to a recipient. The recipient can accept or reject the offer. If the recipient rejects the offer, the donor and the recipient would loose the entire sum.

If the market is driven by self-interest, all recipients would accept any offer greater than zero since the rejection would result in one not receiving anything; something is better than nothing.

The research, however, shows that if the sum is too low, the recipient would reject the offer. The posts in the "life crisis" forum yielded the same result. And like the posts in the "life crisis" forum, the research subjects identified the lack of a fair distribution as the reason for the rejection of a low offer.

For more examples scenario used in his study, take the Moral Sense Test the Harvard Cognitive Evolution Lab's web site.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/

Subsequence research were done in several different laboratories using MRI to examine brain activities as subjects make these moral decisions. These research found that brain activities were firing in two different parts of the brain. They were firing in the part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking. They were also firing the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

An example of using the MRI in this research:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-282X2001000500001&script=sci_arttext

When the self-interest utilitarian choice wins out, part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking is much more active than the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

When the non-utilitarian moral response wins out, the part of the brain that deals with emotional response is much more active than the part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking.

This result led researchers to conclude that the hard-wired moral brake in our brain is located in the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

In fact, MRI studies of psychopath/sociopaths show a link between morally bad behavior with diminished mass of that part of the brain. See:

http://www.crimetimes.org/06a/w06ap10.htm

The interesting part is that, in the test of the self interest economy (the greed game), everyone agrees that the fair distribution is 50-50. However, the threshold for rejection is not 50-50. Before the fair distribution level is reached, the self-interest utilitarian processes overpowers the moral brake. (Everyone has price.)

How does this research apply to moral absolutism and moral relativism?

Here is my conclusion:

Morality is hard-wired in the brain.

Moral absolutism is allowing the hard-wired moral brake to stop the self-interest utilitarian decision making processes when it crosses the line.

Moral relativism is when self-interest is so strong that it overpowers the hard-wired moral brake.

Often, people say that moral relativism is not practical. However, when they say so, they are not defining impracticality as unachievable. They really mean that they are not willing to give up their self interest.