Looks More Like a Puma

I just discovered my new favorite Biblical advice regarding drinking. In Isaiah 5, sandwiched between a condemnation of those who are  wise in their own eyes and  those who acquit the guilty is verse 22:

“Woe  to those who  are mighty heroes at drinking wine and men of strength mixing alcoholic drinks!” (Amplified Version)

I can’t improve on that; feel free to drink, but don’t be a mighty hero :^)

Comic from xkcd.com

Here’s an example of a simple, catchy, seemingly persuasive, utterly foolish argument.  His chart is drawn correctly of course, but an understanding of science points out that it is drawn the only way it could be regardless of  what the true situation were. Science rather than being the unlimited source of all Truth much of the Western World treats it as, is the narrow field of study of the natural laws of this universe. For good reason, Science is restricted to naturalistic explanations for phenomena. It wouldn’t be a very useful scientist who explained away every mystery by saying it was fairies or ghosts or God. While a scientific experiment  may be able to  disprove  claims of a supernatural event by revealing the  perfectly natural cause, it cannot possibly prove that an event was supernatural. First, the natural laws are not fully known so phenomena that seem utterly inexplicable  now may  be perfectly obvious to future generations. Second, all the facts  of any given event can never be known. It is  never possible to say with certitude that the senses were not fooled, or that something did not go unobserved. As an example consider a fellow who has a coin and is flipping it to try to determine if it has a heads and a tails, or is a coin with both sides heads. If he  ever  flips it and observes  tails then he will have disproved the double headed  theory, but no matter how many times he observes heads he will never be  able to prove conclusively that there is no tails side.

Am I saying the religion and science are  incompatible, then, that one deals  with the natural, the other with the supernatural and neither  one has any business in the other’s realm? Certainly not. Much of the  foundation of modern science was laid  down by Christians intent on discovering the mechanics of God’s Creation. The divide between Faith and Reason is not nearly so strict as some  would have us believe. Those who  claim faith have faith based on reason (When a person jumps in the air, he has faith that  gravity will bring him down again, a reasonable faith based on a great  deal of  experience and (if he is learned) scientific principles). Those who claim reason must have some faith. Faith in what? Faith in their senses. Faith  in the assumption that the reasoning of a human brain really is capable of discovering truth and is  not just random  electrical impulses. Scientific thinking is still valuable  in areas where rigorous scientific proofs are not possible (Creation vs. Evolution is a good example), so long as people recognize what  science is useful  for and what it is not.

“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.” - 1 Thessalonians 5:21 NASB

Incidentally I happened to pick on xkcd because it provided a great example of typical scientific  hubris. In general I like xkcd quite a bit. These are some of my favorites.

Who’s in charge here?
1 Peter 2:13-17

Today’s sermon at my church discussed submission to earthly authorities. These are the notes I took:

-Obedience to authority is a litmus test for your spiritual walk-

I. All authority is delegated by God
-Romans 13:1-2
-Colossians 3:22-24
II. Submission to authority reflects Jesus’ character
-1 Peter 2:18-24
III. Submission to authority will ultimately be rewarded
-Romans 13:3-4
-1 Peter 2:19-20

Of course it was mentioned during the course of the sermon that the one exception to this is whenever an authority requires you to do something that directly violates something in God’s law. That makes sense, but it’s also noticeably absent from what Peter writes. If he meant that, why didn’t he say it? Reading his flat statement to submit to “every human institution” seems to contradict with what men of God have done throughout the Bible (Daniel 3:8-12, Daniel 6:12-13, Acts 4:18-20).

These difficulties are resolved by thinking about what is implied by the word authority. The President of the United States is a person who has a great deal of authority. If he decides to, he can direct our (formidable) armed forces to attack some other country (for 3 months at least). However, when he visits Mexico, he can’t tell anybody to do anything. Like every other human authority, his has limits. The authority of an individual is limited by where it applies, to whom it applies, and by topics it applies to. As an example of the last, a congressman in the State of Georgia can require me to pay taxes. However, he can’t stop my car and issue me a speeding ticket. In the same way, he cannot tell me what church to go to, or forbid me to pray. Even if our state constitution allowed that, his commission from God does not. Considering the limits placed on all authority, it makes sense that authority given by God does not include the authority to contradict Him.