God vs. Science

Several times over the course of my life I have heard sermons from various preachers on why the use and pursuit of science is detrimental to the kingdom of God. I think I've finally reached my limit of hearing this kind of self-serving junk from the elevation of the pulpit without seriously challenging it in every way possible.

Because of the "unhealthy" modern trend of asking people to cite concrete evidence for holding a certain position or opinion, many conservative churches have interpreted the "over-dependence" on science and empirical data as a direct assault on faith.

Bill Watkins, pulpit preacher at Crieve Hall Church of Christ, believes carbon dating and the like are seriously flawed methods of research as they render astronomical numbers of age that cannot possibly be accurate as the earth is only about 10,000 years old. (I think the "about" was meant as 10,000 years and 7 days)

Mr. Watkins explains further that God can create age, and that the well-documented geologic record is God's wondrous sense of humor fooling with our feeble attempts to understand the world He made. While it is certainly true that our ways are not His ways, and that the Great I Am is able to do all things (including "creating age" in the world) I think these kinds of guileless characterizations of God is limiting The Almighty to a plebeian perception of an individual's mind and not the complex and awe inspiring Patriarch that He is.

Let me put it very plainly. Pitting God against Science is pitting God against himself, for science is God's tool for creating and governing the universe. Just because we have an extraordinarily limited understanding of some of His methodology, does not mean we have reduced Jehovah to science books and are no longer in need of His love and mercy. On the contrary, even if we were to understand science in its entirety we would be moving past the "how" we were created into the "why." I think every Christian would believe that the "why" is much more important than the "how."

Although I do not subscribe to much of his politics, Mike Huckabee fielded a question early in the GOP debates on the subject of evolution and creation. Governor Huckabee was asked if he believed the world was created in six days, to which he replied that he didn't know how long it actually took or how it happened (because he wasn't there), but he was sure it was God who created the heavens and the earth. This is the only appropriate response a Christian has for that question.

When the pointed criticism, "Do you not believe every bit of The Bible is the inspired word of God?" is returned from an offended brother or sister, whose intent is to undermine my faith and credibility as a believer, I would respond, "Yes. I do believe every word is inspired." However, I do not believe God (through Moses) wanted to over-burden the scientific capacities of His people following the Exodus when relaying the story of His creation.

Even if He were relaying His story directly to us today, I believe He would find it humorous that we have gotten so caught up in the "how," when it is little relevant as to "why."

All science is faith-based to the believer. When God's tool is turned against Him from the pulpit, I believe it recklessly irresponsible as it is an attempt to root faith in a limitation of God; and to limit God in a narrow (albeit scriptural) understanding of His prodigious and marvelous creation can cause the faith's upheaval when it is challenged on solid grounds.

Science is solid ground, but when it is couched as the anti-God instead of God's method, it can be a powerfully destructive force in the kingdom. If science was ever characterized as the anti-God, I can guarantee that it was an ordained minister who is responsible for painting the misguided picture.

Thoughts to ponda....as togetha....we stand and sing.

Personal Politics

American politics intrigues me. The idea that this government was established to pursue liberty and individual freedoms is something sacred, and was an original idea (in practical application) at the time of its establishment.

Individual freedoms and liberty are pursuant to the fundamental truth of "free will" around which God shaped the entire human condition. I have tried to craft a political philosophy that adheres to liberty, human truths, and the fundamentals of free will. I do not believe an extensive discussion on this philosophy is necessary if I can enumerate my conclusions on the current issues facing the United States today.

Below I will name the issue, and give a short philosophy of why I subscribe to that particular path of liberty. If you wish to discuss my position on certain subjects, I'm all for it. Just do so respectfully, and try the point-counter point style of dialog to avoid lectureship.

1. Gay Marriage- I do not believe Governments should be in the business of regulating or defining marriage on any level at all, whatsoever. The current method of "marriage licensing" is an authoritarian policy that is in strong opposition to the pursuit of liberty.

I believe this practice to be unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." One man and one woman is a modern Judeo-Christian form of the institution of marriage.

Furthermore, as Christians, we should not seek the power of the state to protect the sanctity of marriage, or any other Christian value. This mindset is closely linked to the same argument that led to the vanity exercise of The Crusades. Believers should have no use for that policy.

As far as adoption goes with the same issue, governments should not discriminate based on these grounds. Do I believe that homosexuality is a sin? Yes. Though not any more of a sin than gossiping, lying, greed, and gluttony.

As a sinner myself, I know I need grace and help to conquer my flaws and inequities. Banning a practice is meant to curb the behavior or shows a fear of the practice. I do not fear homosexuals, and it is absurd to believe outlawing homosexuality will rid the country of those who subscribe to it. Grace and love should abound from the church toward everyone, and laws should be neutral in their crafting.

2. Health Care & Entitlement Programs- No matter the great oratory for the masses espousing health care as a right, it is NOT one. Liberty is the freedom from governments acting as Robin Hood. When people are paid to do nothing, it is "majoritarian plunder." It's not good for a society to base a system of taxes and welfare on providing every meal, roof, and doctor's visit cradle to grave for every citizen. It is not practical, and it is not healthy.

It is true that not all people can simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps. This is where the Church should come in to provide support and show pure and undefiled religion. It is the failing of the Church that has given leftist and communist the practicality edge on socialist agendas.

3. Public Education- Although it is not a Constitutionally enumerated right, it was universally understood by the founders of our nation that Republics and Democracies must have a well-educated electorate in order to survive. American education should be the world leader in this arena. The cause of education's awful state is the method by which it is funded: property taxes. (San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez, 1973 found that the right to education does not live anywhere in the Constitution)

Poor areas will have little money to contribute to their district schools. Rich areas have the best schools. It's cyclical, and it's a mess. Without a change, it will continue to be one. Truth be told, this government has the ability to fund education if we scaled back in foreign aid and entitlement programs.

4. Environment- I love the environment. Regulation on emissions and industrial waste are good. Just remember this for another conversation: Pure and unchecked capitalism tramples on the rights of individuals as much as an authoritarian state could.

5. Economics- Low taxes equals more money for consumers to put into the economy. The more money out there to be spent, the more competitive the market place becomes. I believe that liberties and low taxes are almost synonymous with one another, but that is open to discussion.

6. Nation Building & Foreign Aid- Shouldn't do it, not ever. The purpose of taxes is to provide services for citizens that live within that nation's borders. I'm not saying these practices are "unconstitutional" as the congress to authorize the expenditures.

I believe when there is a need here at home, we don't send any of our cash overseas, despite the positive ramifications it could have because of the strengthening force of globalization. It's a recipe for disaster.

7. Immigration and National Security- Controlling and documenting the flow of immigration in this country is closely tied to national security. How President Bush can claim a strong national defense agenda and want an open and unsecured border with Mexico or Canada is beyond absurd.

I don't want to deny work and fair wages to immigrants here in America. I want them to enjoy the opportunities and freedoms that America offers. I also want them to operate within the laws of America. That's all I ask. Documentation and tracking systems for immigrants are viable, it can be practical, and it can be paid for without raising taxes.

8. Abortion & Death Penalty- The right to life is so fundamental to the pursuit of liberty that I cannot ever afford, even begrudgingly, the right of personal choice to supersede the superior right of life.

Unequivocally, outside the womb, the right to life is the superior right. Only when equal liberties bump up against each other does a choice need to be made. The mother should have a choice when her life is in danger, but she may choose to sacrifice her life for her child. That is the only time an abortion should be optional, and those circumstances are few and far between.

Even though many disagree with this position, I contend that life and person-hood begin at conception. Just because the child is dependent on the mother's body for nine months, I do not find her choice to control what goes on in her own body justification for ending a life. She is destroying another body that is inside hers. "Choice" is not the superior right, although I understand those who disagree with me may be trying to pursue personal liberties as well, and we have reached a different conclusion.

Insofar as the death penalty goes, I do not believe governments should be in the business of putting people to death. It is vengeful. Depriving one of their freedoms for crimes that trample on the rights of others, especially the right of others to live, is a fitting and appropriate punishment. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a far more just and harsh punishment than death. Just ask a death row inmate; They can't wait to die to end the hopelessness.

I know the families of victims may feel the need to have a death sentence carried out, and that is certainly how I would feel if something happened to a loved one of mine, but I understand the pursuit of liberty must have consistency. No abortion, no death penalty: It is the unimpeachable right to life. I have enumerated this stance before. Let me know what you think.

-I know many of you will disagree with several portions or the entirety of my reasoning, but this is where my pursuit of liberty has led me on the issues. If anyone wants to debate, I'm all ears.

If there is an issue did not address, please bring it up, and I'll discuss it under the comments section.

To borrow from my brother, Live Free Today.