I could be very wrong in my understanding, but it is my belief that the reason for today's political structure is that not enough people take an interest in the way things are run. It is not even so much that the wrong people are involved, because everyone has the capacity for sin and everyone can be corrupted. No, it is not the wrong type of people that are involved in politics, it is simply that not enough people take an interest in the way their lives are being run.
In fact, the entire system of American government is set up so that people can have as little or as much to do with politics as they want, while getting on with their lives. The problem is, it also encourages people to not be involved. Thus, when a decision is being made, otherwise intelligent people will make the unintelligent decision to let someone else decide for them.
Our nation is decaying, exactly because people are not paying attention. They don't respond to polls, they don't vote, and they don't get involved with the very decisions that are shaping their lives, until it is almost too late to do anything about it. By then, they are desensitized to the problem, and are just happy to have it back up a bit to what they consider a reasonable level, that is a level where it is below their notice. It is my belief that the ones most likely to do this are also those who consider themselves to be the most intelligent. Mind you, not necessarily the most intelligent, but those who consider themselves to be the most intelligent. After all, they are the most likely to believe that they are above the petty politics of the common man. They are the most likely to be oppressed by the dictates of the common man, and more importantly, those who are able to manipulate the common man for their own ends.
The belief that one need not get involved in politics because one is dedicated to medicine or science is a falsehood. If one does not get involved in politics, the decisions will be made without one's input. No one wins when intelligent people ignore what is going on so that small-minded people can throw ropes of political expediency around them, and restrict and control how they conduct their lives.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Musings on the Self: Judging Others
I think, of all the sins I struggle with, judgement is most likely the worst. Beyond lying, and beyond laziness, judging others and being judgemental are my greatest challenges in living as Christ lived.
I have my justifications, but those are simply lies I tell myself. When other people do not follow the laws, or the Law, I get miffed. I take it as a personal affront, when it is actually an affront against the nation or God. It has nothing to do with me, but I still get angry.
I have tried to cut it out, but I’m not quite there yet. I’m happy I’ve finally come to the realization that it really isn’t my problem how others conduct themselves. That my problem lies with myself. And speaking of my problems….
Of course, I am in no position to judge others. I myself do exactly what they do. That is what Jesus meant when he said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone,” and, “Look to the plank in your own eye before you attempt to help your brother with the speck in his.”
So, friends, continue praying for me. I will continue trying.
To illustrate my point, the other day I was driving along and someone thought I was going to slow. That, in itself, is not something that normally would anger me: I have no idea where the person was going, or why they were going there, and it is his right to go as fast as he wants (incidentally, it is also his right to accept the ticket he will inevitably get for going faster than the speed limit).
No, his need to go faster than me was not what drew my ire. The fact that his destination was less then thirty seconds away, and he ended up getting in front of me and slowing me down needlessly; that is what made me angry. Had he gone around me, and sped off, leaving me in the dust, I would have been perfectly fine. No, he had to gain several nanoseconds at my expense.
Now, I am sure it never crossed his mind that he was slowing me down for no great gain. He was focused on his destination. No, the problem lies with me. I felt he did it on purpose, a baseless accusation. This made me angry, for if he did it on purpose, he was attempting to hurt me with no good purpose in mind. In fact, I am sure, now, that he did not do it on purpose.
However, my reaction to my anger was unpleasant. I quickly sped past him and cut him off before he could turn, putting the lives of myself, my wife, and my daughter at risk. Such is unacceptable, especially in one who professes to be a Christian.
This got me thinking about what the Bible says. After a moment of soul searching and finally confessing that I had sinned, I began to consider judgement as a whole. People make judgements all the time, and while practicing sound judgement is not, in itself, a sin, assuming a role as Judge against someone is. This line of thinking led me to considering the ways in which God judges us, and how it seems that He sometimes blesses those who are ungodly. As I was thinking that, I thought to myself, “Who am I to question whom the King decides to bless or curse? Was I there when He made the heavens and the earth? Was I there to hear the secrets he whispered to the angels? Was I even there when he rose up David to be the King of Israel?”
No, it is not for us to judge others blessings, but to be joyful in the fact that, in our time of need, the King remembers us and ministers to our needs. We do not know His thoughts, nor do we even know what goes on in the hearts and minds of our fellow men, therefore we have no right or even ability to judge. We can judge actions, and would be foolish not too, but we cannot judge hearts.
Thus, when someone flies past you on the freeway, talking on his cell phone, remember that God is watching him, but also you. He will reward each of us as He sees fit, and we cannot question his judgement.
I have my justifications, but those are simply lies I tell myself. When other people do not follow the laws, or the Law, I get miffed. I take it as a personal affront, when it is actually an affront against the nation or God. It has nothing to do with me, but I still get angry.
I have tried to cut it out, but I’m not quite there yet. I’m happy I’ve finally come to the realization that it really isn’t my problem how others conduct themselves. That my problem lies with myself. And speaking of my problems….
Of course, I am in no position to judge others. I myself do exactly what they do. That is what Jesus meant when he said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone,” and, “Look to the plank in your own eye before you attempt to help your brother with the speck in his.”
So, friends, continue praying for me. I will continue trying.
To illustrate my point, the other day I was driving along and someone thought I was going to slow. That, in itself, is not something that normally would anger me: I have no idea where the person was going, or why they were going there, and it is his right to go as fast as he wants (incidentally, it is also his right to accept the ticket he will inevitably get for going faster than the speed limit).
No, his need to go faster than me was not what drew my ire. The fact that his destination was less then thirty seconds away, and he ended up getting in front of me and slowing me down needlessly; that is what made me angry. Had he gone around me, and sped off, leaving me in the dust, I would have been perfectly fine. No, he had to gain several nanoseconds at my expense.
Now, I am sure it never crossed his mind that he was slowing me down for no great gain. He was focused on his destination. No, the problem lies with me. I felt he did it on purpose, a baseless accusation. This made me angry, for if he did it on purpose, he was attempting to hurt me with no good purpose in mind. In fact, I am sure, now, that he did not do it on purpose.
However, my reaction to my anger was unpleasant. I quickly sped past him and cut him off before he could turn, putting the lives of myself, my wife, and my daughter at risk. Such is unacceptable, especially in one who professes to be a Christian.
This got me thinking about what the Bible says. After a moment of soul searching and finally confessing that I had sinned, I began to consider judgement as a whole. People make judgements all the time, and while practicing sound judgement is not, in itself, a sin, assuming a role as Judge against someone is. This line of thinking led me to considering the ways in which God judges us, and how it seems that He sometimes blesses those who are ungodly. As I was thinking that, I thought to myself, “Who am I to question whom the King decides to bless or curse? Was I there when He made the heavens and the earth? Was I there to hear the secrets he whispered to the angels? Was I even there when he rose up David to be the King of Israel?”
No, it is not for us to judge others blessings, but to be joyful in the fact that, in our time of need, the King remembers us and ministers to our needs. We do not know His thoughts, nor do we even know what goes on in the hearts and minds of our fellow men, therefore we have no right or even ability to judge. We can judge actions, and would be foolish not too, but we cannot judge hearts.
Thus, when someone flies past you on the freeway, talking on his cell phone, remember that God is watching him, but also you. He will reward each of us as He sees fit, and we cannot question his judgement.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Musings on Empty Platitudes: Is War The Answer?
We have all heard it said that war is not the answer. This is actually true. War is not the answer; it is one answer. There are many other answers, but not all of them make sense, and not all of them are correct. Sometimes war is the answer. Sometimes it is not. However, it is an answer to some things.
War is defined as a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. War is characterized by death and destruction. That is the point of war.
Peace is defined as the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. It is characterized by a nation having good to neutral relations with its neighbors, either through isolationism or through positive diplomatic and business relationship.
The reason this platitude is empty is because it does not address the question. It blanketly states that war is not the answer, and yet ignores what the questions might be. The implication is that war is never justified.
So, here is a question: What is the answer to one nation attacking another nation, with the intent of destroying it? Obviously the first answer is to make peace. Make peace is here defined as to ask for or arrange a cessation of hostilities or antagonism. Now, if the other nation refuses to make peace, what is the answer? Obviously, the answer is not make peace. That has already failed. We must seek out another answer.
Could the answer be to negotiate? Negotiation offers a method for making peace, or for surrendering. However, if the desire of the other nation is the destruction of a nation and all of its peoples, then obviously surrender is not an option. Nor is making peace, because that option has already failed.
Is the option defense? Well, if you fight back, isn't that making war? Even if all you are doing is defending yourself from a hostile nation, if you fight back then you are at war with that nation.
So, it would seem that war can be the answer. It is not the only answer, of course; but it would do us all a lot of good to remember that, sometimes, peace simply cannot be attained.
As an afterthought, it is possible to be at peace with a nation intent on destroying you. At peace is also defined as being deceased. When the peaceful nation has been destroyed by the hostile one, then they will be at peace. It is simply a question of; are you willing to make war, or will you ever choose peace?
War is defined as a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. War is characterized by death and destruction. That is the point of war.
Peace is defined as the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. It is characterized by a nation having good to neutral relations with its neighbors, either through isolationism or through positive diplomatic and business relationship.
The reason this platitude is empty is because it does not address the question. It blanketly states that war is not the answer, and yet ignores what the questions might be. The implication is that war is never justified.
So, here is a question: What is the answer to one nation attacking another nation, with the intent of destroying it? Obviously the first answer is to make peace. Make peace is here defined as to ask for or arrange a cessation of hostilities or antagonism. Now, if the other nation refuses to make peace, what is the answer? Obviously, the answer is not make peace. That has already failed. We must seek out another answer.
Could the answer be to negotiate? Negotiation offers a method for making peace, or for surrendering. However, if the desire of the other nation is the destruction of a nation and all of its peoples, then obviously surrender is not an option. Nor is making peace, because that option has already failed.
Is the option defense? Well, if you fight back, isn't that making war? Even if all you are doing is defending yourself from a hostile nation, if you fight back then you are at war with that nation.
So, it would seem that war can be the answer. It is not the only answer, of course; but it would do us all a lot of good to remember that, sometimes, peace simply cannot be attained.
As an afterthought, it is possible to be at peace with a nation intent on destroying you. At peace is also defined as being deceased. When the peaceful nation has been destroyed by the hostile one, then they will be at peace. It is simply a question of; are you willing to make war, or will you ever choose peace?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)