Cleanliness is next to godliness, even in a pandemic

This PDF is a 1919 report of attempts to prove the 1918 influenza (aka Spanish flu) was contagious. The results may surprise you.

Christian and Conspiracies

There seems to a habit of some in the Christian community to use phrases like “outrageous conspiracy theorist ” when referring to people, such as myself, who have taken the time to explore alternate models to explain the phenomena we are observing, namely that some people are getting sick and dying of something. Granted that there are some who listen to a convincing sounding hypothesis and immediately believe it is true and nefarious. 

My position is that any hypothesis that presents a new model should be considered and subject to experimentation. Interestingly enough, I have yet to talk to anyone who dogmatically adheres to the narrative and eschews alternate theories that has actually done much research on either spectrum. They accept the narrative because everyone “knows” there is a virus. Conversely there is the other type that reject it because some other model satisfies their default persuasions.

For two months now I have been consuming copious amounts of information and what I am concluding is that there are copious amounts of information I have not even touched. However, it is clear to me that this destruction of our society and economy is not an appropriate response given the actual facts. 

Church leaders who use the term “outrageous conspiracy theories” when referring to hypotheses they are thoroughly ignorant of are at best weak minded leaders. If we believe that Satan is the lord of this world, that he prowls around seeking to devour, that he is a liar, the father of lies and the truth is not in him, and then we see the state telling us that we cannot meet with our family and friends, engage in corporate worship, but we can go to the liquor store or a gay bath house, that the only way we’ll be safe is to implement a contact tracking system and vaccinate everyone on the globe, nuanced thinkers should pause for a moment and wonder what is really going on.

Romans 13 Revisited

I have been vocally opposed to the capitulation of churches to the decree of the state that they must “forsake the assembling together“. Romans 13 seems to be the primary driver (excuse) used by church leadership to justify this position.

The unfortunate translation of ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις as “governing authority” appears to support the notion of the state as the object under discussion. I reflexively reject that notion, but recognize that doing so demands a reasoned alternate interpretation of the entire passage. While I am convinced the “superior power” is a better interpretation of ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις I still have not arrived at a satisfactory understanding of the passage. I have been meditating on this for quite some time, convinced as I am that the state is not the object here.

As I was walking early this morning I was reflecting on how we always seem to start inquiry into things at the “how could that happen” phase. Take for example WTC 7 imploding and the question of controlled demolition. People always start their consideration with “how could someone do that and get away with it?” That is a fair question and one I don’t have an answer for, but it is the wrong place to start. The place to start is with “what actually happened” and to explain the “what” using logic and reasoning and the model which best fits the observed phenomena. Once the “what” has been demonstrated using a best fit model, it is incumbent on those proposing an alternate model to falsify the assertion of the previous model. How does Romans 13 relate to this?

As I have stated, my understanding of this passage is inconclusive, however if I start with the axiom that the bible is the inerrant word of God, than I should be able to use logic to falsify any predicate I may have based on an interpretation of any passage. So take Roman 13:3.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same”.

If rulers, ἄρχοντες, refers to the state here than all one has to do is demonstrate an instance where the state has indeed acted as a terror to good works, which seems to me an extraordinarily easy thing to demonstrate. Once you have done that logic dictates that either

1. The Word of God is not inerrant. Or...
2. The ἄρχοντες and the ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις are not referring to the state.

Is my logic flawed?