A Government Option Becomes the Only Option

President Obama is out and about, traveling through the Southwestern states, attempting to convince Americans of the validity of his health care reform ideas. If you’ve been following the news at all you know that many of these town-hall meetings with the President and state senators aren’t going overly well. People are getting angry, so much so that these events have turned into shouting matches. While I am all for disagreements being handled in a civil manner, I can’t entirely blame people for being angry.

Health insurance is already too expensive and is expected to become even more expensive! Anyone who thinks through the consequences of instituting a national health insurance company for 47 million people knows that no private insurance company can hope to compete with the government! Why is this so? Because no insurance company in the United States insures 47 million people! The government will literally put private insurance companies out of business. I’ve wondered what the insurance company I work for will do if and when a national insurance company comes about – I can’t speak dogmatically at this point, but I am willing to bet that we’ll pull out of dealing with health insurance altogether.

Obama claims that he can provide health insurance for 47 million uninsured Americans – and all who desire to switch to the government option – while only taxing the “wealthiest Americans,” and on top of all this the costs of health care will be reduced. How in the world is he going to accomplish all this? Does anyone seriously believe that by taxing the super rich we can cover the enormous costs of health care for 47 million people? Doesn’t it seem logical that health care costs will increase because the bill will no longer be through private companies but now the bill would be sent to the government with a seemingly endless supply of money?

Do you know the worst part about this plan? 47 million people would just be the beginning of who utilizes this government insurance. Large corporations would stop providing private insurance deals because “well, we’re already being taxed by the government for insurance … why not use that instead?” I cannot even begin to imagine the domino effect this would have on the insurance and health care industry. Eventually, the government would end up as the majority insurance provider to which most Americans would become dependent on. Taxes would increase if the government insures 47 million people; I don’t think we are ready to consider how much taxes would increase to pay for 300+ million people. The potential costs are staggering.

Sunday afternoon I read an article in The New York Times that explained the story of an English gentleman who needed to make an appointment with a doctor. He called his government approved doctor’s office to make an appointment, and they estimated they could see him in 4 months. FOUR MONTHS! But then he informed them, “Oh, I’m a private, not a public, patient.” The receptionist responded, “Terrific! We can fit you in tomorrow.” England’s national health insurance has been the most important cause to decrease the quality of their health care. The English government has limited funds and therefore must ration health care to the extent that wait times are outrageously long. But as we see in this instance, those who choose to use private insurance are able to achieve quality care in a timely manner.

It is one thing to want every citizen to have health insurance. But using the government is not the answer. What we really need is meaningful health care and health insurance reform that will allow transitions for policies between jobs and/or insurance companies. I think it’s time for our President to consider reforming the private sector rather than increasing nationwide government dependence. I think the President is beginning to see how unpopular his plan is amongst the average citizen. One can only hope.

Rusty

Conversation with a Latter-day Saint

[The following is part of a continuing conversation between a Latter-day Saint (David) and myself about the Trinity and absolute monotheism. David's portion appears first then followed by my response.]

Rusty:

I did a little research regarding those passages in Isaiah … Here Jehovah (Jesus Christ), is declaring that he is the God of Israel. He always has been the God of Israel and always will be their God … The only God they will ever have anything to do with … After reading Isaiah 43:10 are you concluding that the Father and the Son are one personage?

They are one in purpose, perfectly united ... If you're not one, then you're not mine ...

I hope we don't wind up citing the passage ... "God is a spirit... " Some like to cite that verse and put a big period at the end of it. However, there is no period at the end; the verse goes on to say … "and those that worship me, must worship me in spirit and in truth."

In other words, in these verses, the meaning of the word "spirit" refers to truth and righteousness. The old explanation goes like this: If the word "spirit" in these verses meant "no body; no parts" in essence a mist or a cloud, then the second verse "worshiping in spirit", would mean that we would have to leave our bodies at home to worship him! Yikes!

Here are some thoughts about the passages from Isaiah: Persons who object to the Church say, "What about Isaiah 43:10 where it says there were no Gods before Jehovah and will be none after him? Jesus and his Father have to be the same, and there is only one God." Let us look at that verse.

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)

In chapter 43, God is talking about the relationship between him and the Israelites. He uses the analogy of a trial in which he calls witnesses. In verse 3, he declares he is the God of Israel, and in subsequent verses he reassures the Israelites of this relationship. In verse 9 he challenges the nations of the earth to bring forth their witnesses of their gods, and in verse 10 he declares that the Israelites are his witnesses of his work and of the salvation which he is providing. Not only are they his witnesses but his servants because they do his work among the children of the earth. As his servants, he wants the Israelites to understand he is their God. In verse 10 when he said, "before me there was no God formed" he is saying he has always been the God of Israel. When he said, "neither shall their be [any] after me" he is saying he will always be the God of Israel. Thus, we see the context of that verse is that Jehovah always has been and always will be the God of Israel. That verse does not address the question whether Jesus and the Father are the same or are separate. As mentioned above, since Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, it is appropriate to refer to them as "one God".

Those who object also ask, "How about Isaiah 44:8?" Let us look at that verse. “Hear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:8)

This verse is a continuation of the "trial" dialogue we just discussed. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and "there is no God" besides Him. As with the other verse, this passage concerns the relationship between God and Israel and does not address the nature of the Godhead.

By the way, back to the mission field in South America. You would not believe how many people gave me that "deer in the headlights look", when my companion and I asked them who the Savior was praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane! If the Father and the Son were one personage!?

Take care,
David

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

David,

Thanks again for the reply. I apologize for the length of this email, but found that I couldn't do justice by subtracting from its current length. Please read this over carefully as each point will be important to our discussion.

I think it might be helpful for both of us to make sure we are on the same page in our understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Briefly, I would summarize this doctrine as follows: Within the one Being that is God, there eternally exists three coequal and coeternal Persons; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There are 3 essential foundations to the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Bible supports each of these foundations. First, absolute monotheism - there is only one true God in existence. Second, there are three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Third, the three divine Persons are coequal and coeternal. This means that the three Persons have existed from eternity as divine Persons (not simply their matter having eternally existed). This also means that the three Persons are coequal in nature; they all share the One Being of God. Each of the three Persons are equally God. It would be inappropriate to try to divide God's Being up into thirds, like a pie chart. No, rather, each divine Person is fully God and shares the one Being of God.

A helpful analogy of understanding what is meant by "Being" and "Person" is crucial when discussing this definition. Let me begin by using my cell phone as an example. My cell phone has being. It exists. But it has no personality. There is no person sharing its being. Now, I can ask my cell phone how it is doing, but no matter how much I talk to the phone it will never once respond to me. Why? Because it can't reason. The cell phone has no person within its being to recognize itself, or communicate. Now, if you will allow me, I'll use you, David, as an example. You are one being, and within your being there is only one personality sharing your being: the person of David. God also has one being. However, rather than one person sharing His being, He has 3 persons within His one Being.

What the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same Person. The Father is the not the Son; the Son is not the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father – or any which way you want to put it. The Bible teaches the three persons are distinct. Each of these Persons can say “I” of Himself, and can address the other Persons. So when you mention that on your mission you encountered folks who were befuddled by Christ praying to the Father, the answer is simple: Christ was praying to the Father. Christ was not praying to Himself. Yes, that means that the three distinct Persons, sharing the one Being of God, communicate with one another.

One final note, and then I will be done with definitions =). I agree with you that the three distinct Persons are one in purpose, but this is not what I mean when I say that there is only one true God. I mean that there is only one true God in existence, and not three gods or three beings (or more).

You seem to hint in your preemptive strike against John 4:24 ... =) ... that the Father and the Son are separate beings, separate persons, each with their own respective bodies, and therefore “God is spirit” cannot mean that God is spirit, but rather that God has a physical body. This is an important point of disagreement between us. However, I would point to John 4:24, because Christ is talking with the Samaritan woman (which was not a reputable practice for the Jews) about the fact that since God is spirit the worship of Him is not dependent on the location ... as would soon be revealed with the coming of the Holy Spirit. "Spirit" does not mean "truth and righteousness." Spirit means spirit, and in fact "God is spirit" is literally what the Greek says here and is a qualitative description of God's very nature. Well, what is a spirit then? Jesus, when he rose from the grave, spoke to his alarmed disciples by reminding them that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones," and was painstakingly clear that He was physically raised from the dead and not a spirit.

The trouble I think Latter-day Saints sometimes have with understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is that you think of God as an exalted man, with a body as tangible as man's (LDS teachings). The Bible clearly says that God is not a man, but rather His very essence is spiritual, and therefore is not a human being.

You might ask, "Well how can God manage to exist like that? I don't understand..." I don't believe the finite can fully understand the infinite. In other words, we are limited by time and space, but God is not. You and I are limited in our power and our abilities, but God is not. So just because we don't fully grasp something about God does not mean it is not true. The question you need to ask yourself is: does the Bible teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Each of the three foundations I listed above are crucial, and I believe it is on these that we must focus our conversation.

Isaiah 43:10 is one text that supports the Biblical teaching of absolute monotheism. I do not believe that this passage, or the section in Isaiah 40-50, is simply teaching that God is the only God for the Israelites to worship. No, the reason the Israelites were to limit their worship to God is because He is the only true God in existence. This section of Isaiah is, as you rightly describe it, the trial of the false gods. God says in so many ways that He is the only true God in existence. When we consider Isaiah 43:10, He says of Himself, “Before me there was no God formed.” The word “formed” means “to create.” But as the passage continues we discover that there will be no Gods after God either.

The LDS faith teaches contrary to this very text: there were gods formed before God, and there will be gods formed after God.

In closing, I have 2 questions for you:

(1) In light of the fact that God says that there were no gods created before Him, and there will be no gods created after Him, how can you believe that there were, and there will be?

(2) How can this passage make sense from an LDS perspective, considering that “LORD” refers to Jehovah (Jesus) and “God” refers to Elohim (Father)? In other words, if we were to interpret this passage in light of LDS thinking it would read as follows: “Before Me [Jesus] there was no [Father] formed, And there will be none after Me.” (Brackets MINE).

I look forward to your response.

Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin

Lunch-Time Conversations

There are some occasions that seem to be random but really aren’t. They may start off by recurring intermittently but given enough time become daily activities. One such occasion is something I eagerly await every day, and it happens around noontime. Oftentimes I will get off work and have approximately half an hour to kill before I make the trek to my next job. During this timeframe there are 2 customers who visit us on their lunch breaks to sip on coffee or tea.

My interactions with these 2 middle-aged gentlemen began by sitting down on one of the comfy chairs adjacent the three other comfy chairs. It seems to be their custom to invite those rambunctious enough to participate in with their conversations. I was invited to one of their conversations and the tradition has continued for a month now. Each of us brings a book that we are presently reading – which is a commonality that cannot be overlooked. In fact, the desire for learning, reasoning with one another, even debate is something we all share. Most of all, we each have a strong desire for good conversation.

Earlier in the week I was able to briefly share some thoughts from the biography about Jimmy Carter, but ended up learning a great deal from these men who lived through the 70’s.

Movie recommendations are also an integral part of our dialogue each day. On Monday they mentioned two films that are, according to them, classics and a “must see.” The first is “The Avengers,” followed by “Glenn Gary, Glenn Ross.” Yesterday they were anxious to see if I had made time to watch both the films. I chuckled and told them that I’d order them this weekend.

Customers like these make my time at Starbucks completely worthwhile, and this is precisely the kind of “third place” environment we are famous for providing as a company. This is why we have succeeded as a coffee and tea shop while others have failed. There is something about meeting friends, family or even strangers to talk about what is most important to you. The closest resemblance in history seems to be the Salons (not for hair) in France leading up to the French Revolution. People would gather to discuss and debate social, political and religious ideas.

I hope that I might act as salt and light to these men, choosing my words carefully because I represent the God of the universe.

Rusty

The beauty of the Ant

The other day walked by an ant hill and my first response was to cover the hill with my feet. For some reason I decided to take a closer look and I discovered one single ant left outside the now-closed hill. This ant began to take a single grain of sand at a time away from the covered hill in order to reopen the passage way. It was an instant epiphany! This ant was not taking any orders. It was not taking time to decide if it wanted to do the job that I gave it. It was not working for any perceived future reward. It was doing what it was wired to do with all diligence.

"Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise..." (Proverbs 6:6)