Earlier, I commented on a Thursday Mars Hill Propositional. I did not then write this 'report,' because Ryan Edwards--also there--is a Psychology-student and would thus give a more-'appropriate' report.

But Sunday I found out that he would rather consider the 'Friday HomeDogs' his main focus (understandable, as he has a more-prominent role there). Thus, I submit this more-complete report.

Like I said, I got to Sauced first. I was settling to wait about a half-an-hour, but luckily Ryan got there about 15 minutes later.

We sat down, and the B.S.-ing (material at the base of some of the best public conversations) commenced.

He told me he had almost considered not coming because Ben wasn't going to show up. That reminded me of an entry here where I commented on the word "figurehead," how it reminded me of 'what Ben was to Mars Hill, despite his ever-fainter protest to the contrary'

Telling Ryan about that entry (and possibly questioning him a little too much on whether he ever rehd this blog ... I'm a 'responscionary' guys! C`mon!), he told me that some of my content here made me seem a bit 'shifty' ... like I'm too "revolutionary" to 'shut up, settle down, and bow to the golden monkey-Monkey-mOnKeY-MONKEY!' ... for–though we humans can/will acheive the Kingdom–the monkey will always rise up ...

I tried to explain that it was a matter of perspective ... that the people need to know that they ARE Jesus so long as they remain in His Way; the more-directly you follow The Way, the closer you are to His Glory. That's a dangerous teaching, as it leads some people (during their rebellious life-phases) to secretly, surreptitiously channel power to acheive unworthy goals—goals that don't flow toward acheiving the goal of a full, everlasting, eternal Life.

But I was slightly confused (both due to my aphasia and due to the idea of "appropriate leadership" which I'll discuss later), so the explanation mostly went, 'Ya know, it's like ... some people over there ... see this thing over here ... and turn the lights on ... and ... Ya know?'

A few minutes later, he told me that Aaron, Sarah and Amanda would be later than usual (Aaron and Sarah are usually half-an-hour or so late, but they were at an art-show in Norman, Oklahoma that evening with Amanda).

Ryan and I B.S.'ed for a little while longer, when I probably suggested that Ben–in order to lessen his 'figurehead'-status–write the thoughts he is wanting to announce on Sundays and have another speaker (ahem) adopt the thoughts into `is own announcement to the Sunday-group. ('The choosing of a new speaker': that echoes something like 'following the pattern of the king,' for–though every group does need a singular strong leader–that leadership must also consistently change....

(I could go on about 'the need for a fresh face with the same theme' leading to 'the freshness of an old face with the same theme' ... and I probably will eventually; but this change-of-subject shows a) the fertility of B.S. under minds that can find the still-edible corn [metaphorically] and yet b) the need for an Empress to guide the conversation back to the original subject ... discussion at Sauced!)

While Ryan and I were digesting that chunk, Barbara and photographer Jim arrived. We scarcely had time to say hi and find them their seats before Aaron, Sarah and Amanda arrived, along with one of our drama-friends (I forget the name ... another "Ryan," maybe?).

It was getting a little crowded around the little table that was open when I first got there, so (very-cool thing about Sauced's art-neighborhood atmosphere) we pulled another table over to 'carry the load.'

A little more introductions/B.S., and Jim was describing his recent hardships with Medicaid and the doctor who was trying to cheat him out of more money than he had.

The doctor was charging Jim $1 per visit, $1 per operation, and wouldn't operate until after Jim paid. Well, Jim (like me) is in a condition that I call 'sub-standard' and that most call "unsuitable to work," so he doesn't have the '$1 per visit, $1 per operation' that doctors would probably find between the cushions on their toilets.

Naturally, the '$1 per visit, $1 per operation' didn't sit well with Jim; his understanding was that the 'general rule' was "patients who are paid-up on Medicaid receive care at no charge, as any charges are billed to Medicaid,' and the doctor's office was trying to make the charges before Jim received anything! So Jim had to call the doctor–on a three-way with Medicaid–to clear up all the money-business before the doctor would even let him into the office!

Let's review what The Oath doctors take has to say about this:

Original, translated from Greek.

“ I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath. To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art ("Medicine"); to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art. I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art (Surgery). In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot. ”

According to NOVA, the Oath is, as follows:

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

“ I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else. I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work. Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves. What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about. If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot. ”

Modern relevance

Several parts of the oath have been removed or re-shaped over the years in various countries, schools, and societies as the social, religious, and political importance of medicine has changed. Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which praised Greek deities, advocated teaching of men, and forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion, and euthanasia. Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues that face the modern physician.

Changed portions of the oath:
1. To teach medicine to the sons of my teacher. In the past, medical schools would give preferential consideration to the children of physicians.
2. Not to teach medicine to other people. If taken literally, a physician who attempts to educate or make aware of treatment options, even informally, to anyone not enrolled in medical school would lose his or her license.
3. To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them. This beneficial intention is the purpose of the physician. However, this item is still invoked in the modern discussions of euthanasia.
4. Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest. Physician organizations in most countries have strongly denounced physician participation in legal executions. However, in a small number of cases, most notably Oregon and the Netherlands, a doctor can perform euthanasia, by both his and the patient's consent.
5. Never to attempt to induce an abortion. This item is still invoked in the modern discussions of abortion.
6. To avoid violating the morals of my community. Many licensing agencies will revoke a physician's license for offending the morals of the community ("moral turpitude").
7. To avoid attempting to do things that other specialists can do better. The "stones" referred to are kidney stones or bladder stones, removal of which was judged too difficult for physicians, and therefore was left for surgeons (specialists). The value of specialization was recognized in that time. The range of knowledge and skills needed for the range of human problems has always made it impossible for any single physician to maintain expertise in all areas. This also highlights the different historical origins of the surgeon and the physician.
8. To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. There may be other conflicting 'good purposes,' such as community welfare, conserving economic resources, supporting the criminal justice system, or simply making money for the physician or his employer that provide recurring challenges to physicians.
9. To avoid sexual relationships or other inappropriate entanglements with patients and families. The value of avoiding conflicts of interest isn't often questioned.

Modern versions and alternatives

A widely used modern version of the traditional oath was penned by Dr. Louis Lasagna, former Dean of Tufts Medical School.

In the 1970s, cultural and social forces induced many American medical schools to abandon the Hippocratic Oath as part of graduation ceremonies, usually substituting a version modified to something considered more politically up to date, or an alternate pledge like the Oath or Prayer of Maimonides.

The Hippocratic Oath has been updated by the Declaration of Geneva. In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council provides clear modern guidance in the form of its 'Duties of a Doctor' and 'Good Medical Practice' statements.

'The Good Hillbilly makes the first explanation sufficient.'

Now, it's possible that 'Jim's doctor' (or 'the doctor to whom Jim was referred' ... I forget whether Jim made it through the front office) was "taught this art" by a physician who also 'robbed' his clients thus; but that does not excuse misplacement of "the highest priority." Were this physician aiming for the correct highest priority–"the good of the patient"–the physician would not pre-charge! "Money" is the extra fruit of good works ... the tang of the unburned mustard-spice.

Anyway, the physician's greed led the group to discuss the lot of 'being human.' Aaron told us of a college-professor who asked the class, "What differentiates humans from other animals?" Mr. Edwards, as a psych major, posited that it was "undoubtedly, the conscience." Others among us retorted that 'conscience' was largely just "behavior that made the behave-er healthier, and was thus as natural as sheep following a shepherd." (Thinking about it though, you might say that humans are made different by "bad conscience"—the ability to do things that are almost-totally stupid [things like "using words like 'almost-totally'" lol])

Aaron told us that the conclusion his professor found was that humans are the only animals that make 'tools that make tools.'

This revelation somehow led to Aaron's proposition of what he and Sarah were looking for from Mars Hill: 'a church more interested in the "what if (attempts to acheive goals)" than "the rules (why people shouldn't even try the attempts)".'

... ... ... ... ... what I like about Xomba.com is that you can stop in the middle of writing an article, post what you have so-far, and come back to finish it later ... if you feel like it! Yayy!