On Doubt

In the seldom referenced sequel to "Abraham believed and it was credited to him as righteousness" Abraham "fell facedown and laughed to himself, 'will a son really be born to me in my old age?" His doubt did not negate the promise of God.

David said, "My God my God whay have you forsaken me?/Why are you so far from saving me,/so far from the words of my groaning?/Oh my God I cry out by day and you do not answer." Then he goes on to affirm the faithfulness of God. And his doubt did not negate the promise of God.

Zechariah doubted, and was mute...and yet the promise of God was not negated--his son was born.

His son John said "Look the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Then later, to the same person said "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else." The reply to his doubt? Not condemnation, but encouragement. "Go back and report to John what you hear and see; the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

There are a lot of people who doubt, a lot of people in pain, a lot of people who don't always know what to think. Like me. God seems far away sometimes, or a lot of the time, or what sometimes seems like all the time. Theology doesn't always make sense--as nice as that would be...God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. Faith is confusing--God is confusing--Life is confusing.

So does that mean that you can believe anything about God? That God is whatever I believe him to be? I don't think so.
God says, "If you seek me you will find me." God is, so all who seek God will find the same God.

I just seems to me that perhaps Doubt is something that is both impossible to escape, and not incompatible with a life of Faith.

100 Days

On economics

Imagine this scenario:

You are the President-elect, and you want to put together an economics advisory team. You want to have an elected official--preferably a governor on the team. So who do you pick...

You could pick someone who has had economic success in an executive position. One of the 30 or so governors in your party who have led their states at least marginally well over the last several years

Or you could pick someone who has guided her state into a one state recession that has lasted six years. You could pick the one person who has shown the distinct ability to overcome the natural advantages afforded by the strength of the American economy and lead her state down the winding path to economic insolvency. Who has stood resolutely astride the path of economic progress and prosperity yelling "Stop!" Who has shown the singular inability to turn economic success into failure over and over again.

Here's your sign

Things I learned at school today: Part 2

I have ADHD.

We have to take Psychiatry, which was really interesting when we were studying Schizophrenia and Mood Disorders, and even addiction. But some of it is just lame. Like Freud.

ADHD is one of the lame things. The definition is broad enough that pretty much everybody I know could be diagnosed. Well at least all the males I know.

Interesting things I learned in School this week.

We learned about drugs this week.

1. Only 25% of acutely intoxicated patients in the Emergency Room are correctly identified as such. So always ask patients if they've had anything to drink.

2. An LSD trip lasts 12 hours. And the quality of the trip is related to your mood. So if you're in a bad mood, don't do acid.

3. Magic Mushrooms bruise blue. So if you're starving in the forest, you know which mushrooms not to eat.

4. One marketed brand of Estrogen is called Premarin, which stands for Pregnant mare urine And that pretty much sums up what it is. It is currently the fourth most prescribed drug in the US.

On Push-ups

On Rolling over

My son

on politics and voting

I would have written this sooner, but I had four tests this week, and we had dinner engagements every single night, so I didn't have time. One thing is true, I didn't intend any judgement. I guess I'm really trying to ask a question rather than tell you you're wrong.

I recognize that voting is perhaps the most sacred part of the cult of the American faith. It is something that we have been taught to value highly. It is something that has been exalted so much it is one of the unquestionables. One of the basic tenets of the American religion is that voting is in and of itself a good thing. If you don't believe me ask yourself how many times you've heard (or said) "It doesn't matter who you vote for, but vote for someone."

So I don't mean to sacrifice the sacred cow, but I want to ask the questions I have that nobody else seems to be asking.

So don't feel judged because I don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

But I do want to rephrase the question so here goes...

1a. If Christ didn't seize political power when he had the chance, then I shouldn't either.
1b. Christ didn't seize political power
So 1c. Neither should I

2a. I should not do anything that involves seizing political power.
2b. To vote is to seize political power
so 3c. I should not vote.

I recognize that there are probably some pretty glaring logical flaws in this argument. Here's my issue...I don't think there are many people who would really try to refute any of the premises, except perhaps 2b. To that objection I can only say that the political power pie may be divided up into really little pieces, but as small as they are, they're still slices of political power and when we vote we take our piece. But here's how the conversation always seems to go:

"...So, you shouldn't seize political power."
"Yes, you're right, but I think that if you can do good and influence the way the government works, (or spends money, or outlaws abortion, or ends war, or whatever)..."
Or alternatively..."yes you're right, but I think that if you pray about who you're going to vote for..."

That's fine if you think that, but personally I have a problem with both of those responses. I am very skeptical about the ability of the government to do good, and about the ability of voters to really influence the way the government works. Rule of the majority tends to be oppressive to the marginalized and beneficial to the elite. But that's a whole other issue.

As far as the second goes I would say that Christ prayed a lot, and he could have become the emperor of Rome and done a lot of good things, but he chose not to. He chose instead to minister to the marginalized of society and let the government do its thing without him.

So I recognize that pretty much everyone who reads this will have an instant reflex rejection. I do, but I'm not sure why. So my question is if it is right to vote...why is it right to vote? and how is this line of reasoning wrong?

I guess ultimately my problem with voting is this: The act of voting itself is an attempt to impose my will on other people. And I'm just not down with that. Trust me, I don't judge you for attempting to impose your will on me. I recognize it as the way of things that some people will rule others, and the government will steal from me every chance it gets. That's life, but I don't want to be one of the rulers.