Health Care Reform Alternatives

This article gives a wonderful summary of the many problems with our health care industry and why Obama's proposal won't really help fix it (though the author isn't entirely opposed to the current bill in Congress). I'm not sure how well his HSA plan proposed on the final page will work, but it sounds a whole lot smarter than the system adjustments currently proposed. It's good to see an article written by a Democrat who doesn't deny established economic principles.

Hat tip to Dr. Mankiw for posting it.

Pelagius on Will

From Pelagius's Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will, as quoted by Augustine:

"The man who hastens to the Lord, and desires to be directed by Him, that is, who makes his own will depend upon God's, who moreover cleaves so closely to the Lord as to become (as the apostle says) 'one spirit' with Him, does all this by nothing else than by his freedom of will."

"That we are able to do good is of God, but that we actually do it is of ourselves."

It seems to me that Pelagius has a valid interpretation. If we are not responsible for our own good behavior, it seems unjust for God to reward us for it. Heretics can still be right some of the time...

Andúril

Andúril

Would thy beauty be lost forevermore,
If thou wast reforged again?
Or would thy glory be restored
Every day until the end?

Would some metal disappear with every fix?
Is the cut too deep to mend?
Or could mettle be added to the mix
Until the perfect descends?

What if the sword n'er were wrought
With gold so great to heal?
What if its life is merely bought
With refinement as its seal?

What is grace that we can be
Reforged, refined each day?
The perfect never, but we can see
His glory bestowed our way.

The Appeal of the Gold Star Mother

The Appeal of the Gold Star Mother


Alexander M. Sullivan


To him the call in life's morning,
He whispered a fervent adieu,
He followed the flag of his country,
Far away as she knew he would do.
Somewhere by a hill or valley,
Stands a cross o'er the grave that he won,
In that place where the ivy is clinging,
Let the mother draw close to her son.

Let her gaze on the white cross above him,
Marking his flower-decked bed,
Let her kneel where he fell in his glory,
And pray where the laddie lies dead.
Let her weep where the sod rise o'er him,
Like a canopy fit for the true,
Let her pour out the love a mother,
And receive consolation anew.

Not long may she linger beside him,
But happy in heart she will be,
With green sod, the cross and the ivy
Entwined in sweet memory.
Back home in the land that he died for,
She will think of her pride and her joy,
And in fancy she'll see a red poppy,
Abloom on the grave of her boy.

I came across this while doing some research on soldiers. It's incredible how we often forget how much soldiers truly sacrifice for us. Their love is the kind of self-sacrificing, Christ-like love for which we should all strive, and their level of disciple is absolutely admirable.

Global Cooling?

So it seems like every year (at least for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009), there's been someone talking about global cooling. Based on the most recent climate change data, it appears that the world may actually be cooling (or, for the sake of being cautious, it appears that the world cooled in 2008).

So I know I shouldn't be, but I'm confused about how this mounting pile evidence was somehow trampled by the global warming bandwagon. Can they take back Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize now? Please? It'd be a shame if it was awarded for nothing.

Love Is All We Need...

...as long as it is in the right place.

So many people desperately want to hear those words, "I love you" or "I can't live without you!" As humans, we long to feel loved and to express our feelings for those whom we love. We want to find the perfect person, marry them, and live happily ever after. We want to pretend that we can be satisfied in marriage, that we can find rest in this life. The problem is: we can't. As Augustine said, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee."

I wonder if our longing for love in other people isn't just a displacement for the love that God has for us. I'm reminded of Psalm 139.

"O LORD, you have searched me and you know me.You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar."

- vv. 1-2

We want someone who can know what we are thinking, just with a glance or a smile.

"You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways."

- v. 3

We want someone who knows all of our idiosyncrasies, and who loves us because of (or in spite of) them.

"Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD."

- v. 4

We want someone who finishes our sentences for us.

We want these comforts from people of the opposite sex, but it is only the Lord who can truly fulfill them all. Even our spouses cannot not know us perfectly. We cannot share our every thought, our every feeling with another person. The demands of life (and our not having telepathy) prevent it from occurring. Only the Lord can know everything about us.

But more importantly, when we look for love in other people, we want it to be constant. G.K. Chesterton said, "It is the nature of love to bind itself, and the institution of marriage merely paid the average man the compliment of taking him at his word." We get married because we want someone to love us for the entirety of our lives, and often beyond. Yet the high rate of divorce indicates that even marriage cannot guarantee the eternal love of fallible humans.

The Lord reassures His people, "I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness" (Jeremiah 31:3). His love is unceasing - not just in this life, but in what lies beyond it as well. His love never fails. Yet time and time again, our trust and our love placed in other humans fails us. We continue to place comfort in other people, instead of seeking our security in God. Rather than letting the Lord be our refuge, we put our heart and soul and mind and strength into our relationships with other people.

It's funny, because we don't normally think of romance as being sinful. Obviously, relationships can lead us into impurity and sin, but we don't think of longing for others as necessarily bad (that's not to say it always is, either). But when we seek our security in relationships, we are filling that God-shaped hole in our hearts. We are filling a void that is meant for God, and inadvertently separating ourselves from Him. We are accidentally falling into sin!
Before official relationships begin, both people tend to develop a crush on each other first. The characteristics of a crush are pretty clear: constantly thinking about the person, talking to your friends about him or her, writing adorable heartfelt poems, doodling on every spare scrap of paper, and floating through the day because of being generally happy with life. I can sense these characteristics when I think of 1 Thessalonians 5:16-17: "Be joyful always; pray continually."

I wonder if, before we start to deal with our human crushes, we should start cultivating a more divine crush. God ought not be second in our hearts. Plus, I think it'd be much more romantic to hear my husband say, "I can live without you, because I rely on God, but I don't want to live without you, because you help bring me closer to Him."

Freud, Evolutionary Psychology, and Religious Experience - An Expansion

I would like to expand on one of the points considered in the previous post, and expound upon one of my own.

As for the second point, I completely agree that most psychological theories on religion are based on the "assumption that religious belief is unjustifiable." I think this is particularly important to keep in mind, because, as far as I know, religions claim to be true. Many - if not most - Christians would not be Christians if they did not believe (for example) that Jesus rose from the dead. If such an event occurred, then there is no need for a psychological explanation for religion - religious belief is justified by fact.

7. Freud writes, "[I]t is a very striking fact that all this [religion] is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be." I find this assessment to be patently untrue. While there are some Christians who will revise the teachings of Jesus to justify their prior beliefs, most Christians feel challenged by his teachings in one way or another. I wish that my religious beliefs could justify my pride or ambition or selfishness. But they don't. They challenge me to be very different than I would otherwise be in order to obtain salvation. True, they may grant me the opportunity for an eternal world beyond this life, but I don't find that desire particularly strong to begin with. Religion is an answer to my search for truth, a truth which is radical and discomforting to my natural state, not an opiate to appease me.

Galaxies and G.K. Chesteron

In The Everlasting Man, G.K. Chesterton wrote:

Modern people...seem to forget, for instance, that a man is not even certain of the Solar System as he is certain of the South Downs. The Solar System is a deduction, and doubtless a true deduction; but the point is that it is a very vast and far-reaching deduction and therefore he forgets that it is a deduction at all and treats it as a first principle. He might discover that the whole calculation is a miscalculation; and the sun and stars and street-lamps would look exactly the same.

Recently, a rather enormous miscalculation was discovered. Harvard researchers found that our galaxy is 50% more massive than previously thought.

...As if we didn't have enough reasons to recognize Chesterton's genius already.

Liberal vs. Conservative Values

So Experimental Theology posted about a thesis on morality that explains the moral differences between liberals and conservatives.

The blogger, Richard Beck, summarizes Jonathan Haidt's five moral foundations:

Harm/Care: Harming others, failures of care/nurturance, or failures of protection are often cited as reasons for an act being “wrong.” Some virtues from this domain are kindness, caretaking, and compassion.

Fairness/Reciprocity: Inequalities or failures to reciprocate are often cited as evidence for something being “wrong.” Some virtues here are sharing, egalitarianism, and justice.

Ingroup/Loyalty: Failure to support, defend, and aid the group is often cited as evidence for “wrongness.” Virtues include loyalty, patriotism, and cooperation.

Authority/Respect: Failure to grant respect to culturally significant groups, institutions, or authority figures is often cause for sanction. Virtues include respect, duty, and obedience.

Purity/Sanctity: Anything that demeans, debases, or profanes human or religious dignity or sacredness is also a cause for sanction. Virtues include purity, dignity, and holiness.

Research has shown that liberals and conservatives differ in the degree to which they deploy these moral grammars. Specifically, liberals tend to emphasize the first two: Harm and Fairness. Conservatives, by contrast, often appeal to the last two: Authority and Purity. This is not to say that liberals or conservatives restrict themselves to these warrants, but they do display moral tendencies with some warrants being used more than others or some warrants held as more vital than others.

I think there is definitely some truth to this thesis. (After all, isn't there a little bit of truth to almost all ideas?)

I think of the difference between one of my best friends and myself. As a conservative, I am much more disturbed by premarital sex than my liberal friend is. In fact, she barely understands my disgust with it, while I cannot comprehend how she is so at ease with it. This seems to confirm the hypothesis.

Yet I still doubt if this hypothesis is accurate. I think conservatives value stay-at-home mothers much more than their liberal counterparts. After all, children need to be cared for, and it is unfair for them to not have a proper upbringing. Yet conservatives also feel that mothers have a “duty” to care for their children, whereas liberals seem to apply this concept of “duty” more... liberally. Even if the conservative mentality is that of Authority/Respect and not Harm/Care or Fairness/Reciprocity, I would say that the categories are not as easily classifiable as is suggested. A mother's duty comes from conservatives' sense of justice and obligation to take care of children.

For a firmer counterexample, I think of race relations. When looking at the issue of affirmative action, conservatives talk about equality and fairness for all people, including whites. It often seems that liberals today demand “respect” for what they deem culturally significant groups – minorities.

Liberal human rights campaigns are often couched in terms of human “dignity.” Conservatives are the ones who demand “justice” for the victims of violence. Compassionate Conservatism seems to defy this system of classification. Democratic soldiers appear to negate this hypothesis.

After taking the test, it revealed some more insight: Republicans are ranked almost evenly on all five categories, while Democrats rank much more highly on the first two. Essentially, Democrats care little for Authority or Purity, whereas Republicans care about all moral factors.

The more interesting component of what Beck discusses is the “disgust-factor” which is addressed in this recent New York Times article. The article essential states that Republicans tend to feel more disgust than Democrats, and thus are psychologically different. This appears easy to link to the fact that conservatives value purity more than liberals.

Yet I wonder if the difference in values system might stem from other, more relevant differences. The Democratic Party is much more secular than the Republican Party, and I can easily understand why religious people would be more affected by moral situations involving purity. Christians are also called to fulfill their duties and act with respect for authority, whereas secular humanists feel more of an obligation to help other human beings. I think that these religious differences may be more key to understanding morality than simple political affiliation.

Needless to say, much more research needs to be done on the subject before I will grant it any weight.

Gratitude

I always find it disconcerting when people ask me what my cafeteria is like. If you've ever seen Annenberg, you'll understand why the term cafeteria doesn't quite do it justice. The only sad thing about having such an incredible eating facility is that after eating there three meals a day, seven days a week, you begin to take it for granted. You forget how beautiful the building is, how much time went into producing the stained glass, how much effort was expended on its construction.

I feel that my developed indifference to the beauty of Annenberg and the skill of those who created it is similar to our acquired apathy to to the beauty of the world and the incredible nature of the God who created it.

Imagine what the world must appear like to a newborn: a strange set of colors, movements, and objects appearing randomly and without reason. It is only as the years begin to wear on us that we begin to treat the world as though it could not be any other way. As we begin to see the same beauty year after year, we begin to take sunrises and sunsets for granted. After a couple decades, we forget our love for first winter snowfalls and sunny summer days, crisp spring air and autumn's vibrant hues. We lose our sense of wonder at the world. We seek visible miracles while overlooking the fact that our very existence is a miracle in and of itself.

I love the random moments when I look at my dining hall and realize what I have been taking for granted because they remind me to thank God not only for the material things He gives us: food, shelter, and money, but for the fact that anything material even exists.

As Oscar Wilde said, "The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible."

Andúril

We are now featuring a new blogger: Sword Reforged.

Guest Article: Science and Christianity

Here we find a translation of the story of Creation as told by the Torah and, later, the Bible.

Link.

At it's most basic level, the story of creation does not address much about what Science has discovered about our universe. As for the thousands of galaxies, solar systems, suns, planets, etc. that make up the universe of which we are a part, Genesis merely says "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." This, of course, was simply to delineate night and day. Also, this took place after creating water and land. Both of these observations lead to a contradiction with what Science tells us, and thus a contradiction between legitimizing Christianity's story of creation and Science's.

As for Evolution, Genesis then states that God created creatures of the sea and birds in the sky, then some beasts for the land, and finally man to rule all of them. Now, according to the Theory of Evolution, birds evolved after primates; yet the Torah gives us the birds coming at least a day or two before Humans.

These are only a few contradictions between Genesis's version of Creation and Science's version. Obviously, Science of this century has more tools to work with at discovering how we originated than Genesis does. Do these contradictions really mean anything? Do they disprove Christianity? Probably not. They are relatively minor, and have little bearing on what will happen to our souls after we pass on.

Yet one crucial part of this opening chapter of Genesis does deal with our souls and our relationship with God; that part which states that God created Man in His own image. Now, as we physical beings cannot resemble a supernatural one in appearance, this must mean we are created in God's image in terms of the spirit, in terms of the soul. Yet Science and Evolution tell us that all creatures on the Earth come from the same organism, the same place: "The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits, and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups."

As we research our genetic coding further, we continue to discover relationships to the other life on our planet at a closer and closer level to the subatomic. Things like the Golden Ratio of 1.618 which lie in a myriad of structures on different animals, including Humans, strongly indicate our inseparable relation to other animals. Yet if we all come from the same organism and all share the same basic genetic coding, how can some of us have souls and others lack them? I believe that if any of us has a soul, than all of us must; furthermore, if any human has a soul, than so must every form of life. This resembles some Buddhist theories about our relationship to the natural world.

The Bible does not address the issue of animals having souls; it does not even address the Dinosaurs. For many, a belief in a religion requires some questions and a few answers; after viewing Christianity with the lens of twenty-first century Science, we find many questions left unanswered.