Sunday, October 19, 2014

Pastor Baffled Why Christians Reluctant To Embrace Death At The Hands Of ISIS Or Ebola

A pastor mused during a sermon that he wondered why so many Christians were reluctant to die.

It was then remarked you can either die at the hands of ISIS or from Ebola, so you might as well have a positive attitude about it.

Do those making such statements in a religious frenzy actually stop to consider how it is to perish as a result of such necrotic modalities?

Regarding the concern Christians often express regarding death.

Why are we at fault regarding the survival instinct God has imbued into nearly every form of life?

Furthermore, if Scripture says that those that hate God love death, wouldn't it therefore follow that as the most correct religion that Christians would be the most averse to this disputed metabolic state?

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, October 17, 2014

Could The President's UN Remarks Undermine Religious Liberty

In an address before the United Nations, President Obama proclaimed to the planetary assembly, “No children --- anywhere --- should be educated to hate people.”

The President went on to clarify, “There should be no tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm innocents.”

The President suggested that this could be accomplished in part by composing a “new compact...to eradicate the corruption of young minds by violent ideology” and by “contesting the space that terrorists occupy --- including the Internet and social media.”

Such proposed policies sounds like a prudent course of action to take against those out to destroy the American way of life.

But in deciphering the double talk that spews from the mouths of political elites like phlegm during flu season, the discerning grow concerned as to whether or not such rhetorical pronouncements will only be used against the jhadist menace.

Given the President's fundamental ideological orientation as a socialistic secularist, what safeguards are to be put in place that these strategies won't be used against Americans of a conservative Evangelical or Roman Catholic persuasion?

For example, when the average American hears Obama insist that no child anywhere should be taught to hate other people, images of toddlers and preschoolers being indoctrinated by a giant plushy mouse as to the glories of not only killing Christians and Jews but of their own suicide martyrdoms.

However, in the eyes of the crowd that Obama runs with, propagating hate can consist of little more than publicly reading those passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality or peacefully insisting that professing belief in Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.

In fact, columnist Mark Steyn was dragged before a Canadian human rights tribunal for remarks not too much more rhetorically forceful than those made by Obama on the floor of the United Nations by simply exposing what jihadists had themselves articulated.

Obama suggested that different faiths should come together to speak out against this violent worldview.

It depends upon what the President means by that.

Fine and dandy if he means a respect for human decency being enunciated individually from behind each pulpit in a wide variety of houses of worship.

However, if the President is suggesting that widely diverging faiths are obligated to open their pulpits to one another free of doctrinal criticism as to where these guests measure up and fall theologically short, the government will have taken a step one too many to the point where its agencies will likely become the next great threat to our own liberties and well being once the identifiable terrorist menace has been identified and appropriately dispatched.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Ebola: Sitting Ducks

By Ronald R. Cherry, M.D.

A Spanish nurse has contracted Ebola – in Spain – while caring for a Spanish Priest who became infected with Ebola in West Africa. The Priest died of Ebola, so let’s pray that his nurse survives.

“A nursing auxiliary in Madrid has tested positive for Ebola after treating a patient in the Spanish capital, according to Spanish newspaper El Pais. The case is believed to be first in which a person contracts Ebola from a source outside of Africa. While the woman has not been identified, El Pais reports that she is 44 years old, married without children, and originally from Galicia, though she has worked for more than 15 years in Carlos III Hospital in Madrid. She has not left Spain or come in contact with the Ebola virus except for her work in treating Manual García Viejo… The newspaper notes that the nurse brought herself to Alcorcón hospital's emergency room after experiencing a fever, and was tested twice for Ebola, both times with positive results. Co-workers tell El Pais they are shocked by the contamination, given that the hospital used "extreme" protection against the disease.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/06/Spanish-Health-Worker-Becomes-First-Ebola-Patient-to-Contract-Disease-Outside-of-Africa

 
The Spanish nurse likely became infected with Ebola via airborne transmission. No doubt she had extreme protection against direct contact with the body and body fluids of the Ebola patient, but that is not good enough.

"Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings... We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks... We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for the purchase and transport of PAPRs [powered air-purifying respirators] to all healthcare workers currently fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa – and beyond." Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

Airborne transmission of Ebola probably accounts for this case and others, such as Dr. Brantley who also exercised extreme caution - except not enough caution - he did not use a HEPA-filtered full face respirator. Under CDC guidelines health care workers are protected against direct contact but not against inhalation or eye exposure to microscopic contaminated droplet nuclei, which cannot be seen and which can travel across a room with air currents, and which can remain infectious for about an hour and a half. The potential for this strain of Ebola is exponential, and we have 300 million un-vaccinated sitting ducks - we Americans. Our government has failed in its primary duty – to defend and protect the American people. I believe our pharmaceutical companies would have developed Ebola vaccines years ago were it not for Big Brother.
 
Read more here:
 
 
 
 

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Broadcaster Hints Ebola Plague Could Be Retribution For Violating Mosaic Dietary Guidelines

On the 8/5/2014 broadcast of Viewpoint, Chuck Crismier examined the threat posed by the Ebola virus.

In his analysis, he pointed out that the virus can be spread through the fruit bat, which a number of Africans consume as part of their native cuisine.

Crismier interjected that such a practice is not Biblical.

If the apologist is insisting that Old Testament dietary regulations are binding upon New Testament non-Jewish believers, he is not correct.

In Matthew 15:11, Christ Himself counsels that an individual is not defiled by what goes into one's mouth but rather by what comes out of the elocutionary orifice.

This New Testament alteration of the Old Testament law seems to be sustained by a number of other passages.

In I Timothy 4:4, the Apostle Paul asserts that ALL foods (not just the list of Mosaic kosher foods) can be enjoyed with thanksgiving.

To clarify that God was the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles, in Acts 10 Peter was instructed to eat from a selection of foods that up until that point that he had been conditioned to avoid as unclean.

God would not have compelled Peter to do something that was still a violation of God's law.

It's not like Peter was told to marry a man or to offer worship up towards a false god.

It is a correct observation that very few Americans would want to eat a bat.

However, is Chuck Crismier going to insist that he has never eaten or since repented of partaking of crab, shrimp, or lobster which are also forbidden under Old Testament dietary guidelines since these creatures are essentially underwater coach roaches?

Likewise, if Chuck Crismier believes this strongly about strict adherence to the Mosaic law in its entirety, does he intend to broadcast an episode of his Viewpoint news and cultural analysis program condemning the Duck Dynasty clan for the consumption of yet another food clearly forbidden in the pages of Old Testament revelation?

And what about the fast food industry such as Burger King and McDonald's?

A common complaint among certain factions of the more doctrinally enthusiastic is that contemporary Evangelicals are insufficiently Hebraic in their approach to the interpretation and application of Scripture.

So if Africans are to be condemned for consuming bats which might be one of the very few food items available to such impoverished populations, does one have to be consistent and declare an all out crusade against the All American cheeseburger?

By Frederick Meekins

Religious Leftists Agitate Politically

According to the 10/15/2014 issue of the Christian Century, a coalition of religious leftists is launching a campaign to encourage voter registration in low income and immigrant communities.

In other words, populations likely to elect candidates more likely to promise the largest handout payments.

This mobilization effort plans to organize under the banner of Let My People Vote.

Mind you, these are likely the very same agitators insisting that the pro-life, pro-family, and pro-American policy preferences of Religious Right organizations such as Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition cheapen the cause of the Gospel.

by Frederick Meekins

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Republican candidates actually fairly moderate compared to Democrats on social issues, despite media's biased coverage

By Robert Pickup, Jr.

William Saletan writing at Slate says that “Aiming at a broad electorate candidates are looking for issues where the public agrees with them and dodging issues where they might lose votes.”  This goes without saying when it comes to politicians, but then Saletan only devotes one sentence to Democrats not wanting to talk about the economy.  He then devotes the rest of his article blasting Republican cowardice on social issues saying “They don’t want the election to be about these issues, even in Red States.”

His first example of a Republican trying to “weasel” out of a social issue question is in the Virginia Senate race between Democrat Senator Mark Warner and Republican Ed Gillespie.  Speaking about contraception Warner said “the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby got it wrong.  I don’t think a for profit corporation ought to be able to interfere in an employees health care choices.”  Warner doesn’t seem to understand that case however.  The Hobby Lobby case limited the ability of the Government to force privately owned companies to violate the owners religious beliefs.  Hobby Lobby still provides many forms of contraception’s in their Health Insurance plans.  Warner also said that Gillespie would vote to overturn Roe V Wade.  Again the Senator gets it wrong.  As Gillespie rightly responded “there is not going to be a vote to overturn Roe, that’s a Supreme Court decision.  I’m running for the United States Senate.”  It’s no surprise that Warner is raising social issues to attack Gillespie, he voted for the unpopular Affordable Care Act and voted with Obama 97% of the time.  That is problematic for him amongst Virginians. 

Saletan moves on to the Arizona Governors race between Democrat Fred Duval and Republican Doug Ducey.  When asked about same sex marriage Ducey said that “on an issue like this a Governor doesn’t make the decision.  This decision is decided by the people.”  However this is no longer the case.  Liberals are all for Democracy until they don’t get what they want, then they go to the courts.  According to the New York Times “20 Federal courts in a row had ruled that State bans on same sex marriage, or on recognition of marriages performed in other States, were unconstitutional.”  Many Pundits believe this issue will be fully put to rest by the Supreme Court very soon.  

Saletan then discusses probably the most well known Governors race this election cycle.  That is the Texas Governors race between Republican Greg Abbot and Democrat Wendy Davis.  When asked about their views on abortion Davis talked about her filibuster of an abortion bill.  She said “I have stood on the Senate floor for 13 hours to assure that this most private of decisions could be made by women.”  In actuality the bill didn't take away a woman’s choice.  The Washington Post wrote that the legislation would only ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital surgical centers.  As Abbot said “women still have 5 months to make a very difficult decision.”  Only after that  did the State have “an interest in protecting innocent life.”  This is right in line with what most Americans want.  According to a collection of polls gathered by the AEI most Americans support first trimester abortions.  However they oppose second and third trimester abortions and support restrictions such as parental notification.  

As we can see far from being cowards on social issues, Republicans are being very moderate compared to these extreme leftist candidates.  They are trying to concentrate on issues that matter most to people.  These issues according to Gallup are Jobs, the economy in general and the Federal deficit.  Gay marriage, contraception and abortion didn’t even make the list.  Democrats know that by raising these issues they can distract voters from the fact that they have caused, made worse or ignored the issues that matter most to their constituents.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Is The Southern Baptist Missions President More Interested In Your Stuff Than Your Soul?

There is no pleasing some theologians unless you word to the most exacting detail everything the way that they would.

A Facebook meme attributed to Southern Baptist International Missions Board president David Platt is quoted as saying the following: “Accept him? Do we really think Jesus needs our acceptance? Don't we need Him? Jesus is no longer one to be accepted or invited in but one who is infinitely worthy of our immediate and total surrender.”

Is there really a reason to get one's backside up on one's shoulders over a pastor or evangelist that phrases the soteriological appeal in terms of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Granted, as part of the infinite triune Godhead, Jesus can hobble along quite fine without us no matter how much Pastor Platt believes world missions might collapse without his particular brand of religious over-enthusiasm.

What it simply means when someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior is that the person assents to the truth and validity of the claims and conditions made in the Gospels.

What is interesting is Rev. Platt's phraseology of immediate and total surrender.

Traditionally, that is what occurs when the sincere individual comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, meaning one makes a concerted effort with the help of the Holy Spirit to resist those more sinful desires.

However, what Platt may mean by that, given the perspective taken in a number of his books such as “Radical” and his sermons available on sites such as Youtube, is a bit different.

To Platt, it is not so much that your life and possessions are Christ's to determine directly how these are to be used to His glory but rather that is to be determined by your betters up the ecclesiastical food chain.

According to sermons from the likes of Rev. Platt, in taking up your cross, it is not sufficient to endure a particular struggle or trial that has come into your life but rather that you are to think of yourself as on the way to execution in terms that you are supposed to be wracked with profound guilt for a standard of living above that of the subsistence level.

However, religious superstars such as David Platt are to enjoy a semi-luxurious lifestyle flying across the country and around the globe having accolades and wads of cash tossed in their direction over how wonderful they are for being outraged that you have what you have.

Christ Himself says in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”

The text does not say that Jesus will beat down the door.

Customarily, when someone knocks at the door, it is your right to either open the door to invite them into your dwelling or to decline their request along with whatever it is they might be happening to bring you.

But then again, we are in the age where apparently the theological celebrities know more than Christ ever did.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Pastor Apparently Selective In What Pagan Practices He Condemns

In a sermon titled “The Satanic Deception Of Halloween” posted at SerrmonAudio.com, Pastor James Cooley details the history of how black cats came to be connected with this autumnal celebration as the spirit familiars of witches and as a result of an alleged Druidic belief that cats were the reincarnated souls of evil people.

To this, the podcaster interviewing Pastor Cooley remarked that he knew there was a reason why he did not like cats.

Pastor Cooley concurred with an “Amen.”

But who is it that created cats?

Surely it was not Satan.

Was it not the God that we are supposed to be so dedicated to that we can't even participate in a festival that does not possess any meaning for most other than dressing up in a silly costume to collect candy from door to door?

Cats are not inherently evil.

That is merely the connotation they have been imbued with from a cultural and literary standpoint derived from subjective existential or psychological sources.

In other words, from nothing more than what someone happened to think or feel regarding them.

Should something be abandoned because a number construe a conceptual or ontological category to be evil rather than it actually being so?

So does this include Fundamentalist Baptist Churches?

For years, that form of ecclesiology's most ardent adherents rightly condemned the pedophile scandals that wracked the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it turns out that nearly the same perversion had gripped a number of hardline Independent Fundamentalist ministries.

Therefore, isn't it logical to contend that there have been more innocent people hurt in a spirit of appalling wanton sin perpetrated by those that should have known better than were ever hurt by cats exhibiting a similar degree of deliberate malice?

So does that mean we should refrain from attendance at these particular houses of worship to avoid offending the weaker brother?

Often, the conspicuously pious will homiletically insist that Halloween ought to be avoided altogether not so much to refrain from actual wrongdoing but to avoid the appearance of such and out of the necessity to separate from unclean things as counseled by Scripture.

As such, shouldn't we also consider the source of this sentiment against cats if the propriety or impropriety of a thing is to be determined not so much by how it is practiced today but rather by ideas affiliated with it at the time a custom came into existence?

By the pastor's own admission, this particular prejudice is supposedly Druid in origin.

Thus, if we are to severe all connections with Halloween for being pagan in origin, why not this unfounded contempt for felines as well?

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, September 28, 2014

The Left now Equating Obama's Foreign Policy with Bush's

By Robert Pickup, Jr.

Liberals are so upset with Obama's foreign policy they have begun to equate it with Bush's.  Paul Rosenberg writes that Obama, in his recent speech announcing war against ISIS denounced them in terms similar to President Bush. According to him this bodes badly for our chances to defeat them. The President went rogue when he said "It (ISIS) has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way." This is too black and white, too Bush esque for Rosenberg's taste. He quotes Sun Tzu's "Art of War" to show us that you need to know your enemy to be able to defeat him. By ignoring ISIS vision of the establishment of an Islamic State President Obama, according to Rosenberg is taking the neo conservative route of mindless violence.

There is much wrong with This logic. To begin with he tells us an example of Obama being nuanced is when in his ISIS speech he says "We cant erase every trace of evil from the world." This is really just another of the Presidents famous straw man arguments since no one is arguing that we do such a thing. He just says this to make himself look more responsible and reasoned than his political opponents. In reality President Bush never stated we should erase all evil from the world or even that all Islam was the problem. Bush's nuanced view of the war on terror was on display when he said "ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for."

Further President Obama has never shown he understands the vision terrorist organizations have going all the way back to 2001. He sat in Jeremiah Wrights church when he said that America was to blame for 9/11, that our chickens had come home to roost. Obama was then quoted as saying that the main reason for the attacks was that the terrorists lacked empathy. Then again after the attacks on our embassy President Obama blamed it on a video that degraded the prophet Muhammad. Contrast that with Bush's view of the terrorists vision, "their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane...whatever its called this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom." This is exactly the vision Rosenberg wants Obama to recognize in ISIS.

What Rosenberg believes is the Presidents nuance is just his attempts to obfuscate the real motivation of terrorists because he is unwilling to confront them. The beheading of an American citizen awakened the public to the threat ISIS poses, forcing the Administration into action. We can only hope Obama takes the Bush approach which led to victory in Iraq instead of his nuanced approach which led to an ISIS on the march.

Robert Pickup Jr is a constitutional conservative from Massachusetts.  He likes to write conservative responses to liberal op-eds. His personal website is conservativecontrarian.wordpress.com.

Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Care is meant for Seniors

By David Lawrence

I always hated Rom Emanuel.  I think he was a ballet dancer or something when he was young.  His mom sent him to ballet school. After the 2008 presidential election, President Barack Obama appointed Rom Emanuel to serve as White House Chief of Staff.
 
Every time I saw him on television he was arrogant, pompous and nasty.  This is not a digression.  A person’s personality often results in failed deeds.  He contributed to a failed president, Barack Obama.
 
His brother, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, is even more arrogant than he.  When I saw him on television he reminded me of the devil.  There was an evil beneath his medical ideas.  He pontificated about how long people should and shouldn’t live and how his flawed Affordable Care Act was a magnificent piece of legislation that would help everyone that it didn’t hurt.
 
Ezekiel spoke about how we should shovel money over from keeping seniors alive to the young and healthy. We could afford healthcare for seniors if Emanuel hadn’t assaulted us with ObamaCare where millions of people lost their doctors and their health care.  He also had to waste more money on deductibles and premiums. He put us more in debt so that we couldn’t afford to cover our seniors.  And yet ObamaCare started as a spin-off of Medicare which was designed for the old.  Has Emanuel forgotten our priorities? Health care is designed for Seniors.
 
Sarah Palin worried about death panels.  Obama made fun of her for such an absurd idea.  But Ezekiel openly promotes euthanasia which is subtly embedded in Obamacare and no one makes fun of him.
 
Ezekiel accuses people of living past seventy five of using up health care’s resources.  He suggests that by knocking off people over seventy-five that we will have more money to minister to the young. He never thinks that if utopian naïfs like Obama didn’t waste money on his colossal bureaucratic health program or solar panels or the ideological EPA that we would be able to afford health care for our senior citizens.
 
Never have I known of a society cruel enough to kill its elderly.  Only Ezekiel would follow in this Nazi approach.  And he is a Jew?  Didn’t he learn anything from the demolishment of our people?
 
There are so many people past their seventies who have contributed to society.  What about Yeats, Grandma Moses, Kissinger, Barzun, etc.  Why doesn’t Ezekiel decide to exterminate young people with IQ’S beneath one hundred or cripples?
 
Ezekiel has no heart.  He is all illogical logic.  He is the failure of modernity caught in the strictures of make-believe progress.  He reminds me of his brother, Rom, who presides over the city with the most shootings—Chicago.  He reminds me of his former boss, Obama, whose ideas fail to meet the test of pragmatism. 

 

Friday, September 26, 2014

Does Enslavement Uplift Spirits?

Islamic propagandists are insisting that women that wear hijabs have a higher body image.

If a woman wants to wear such an outfit, that might be her business.

However, isn't the more pressing issue at hand the women being forced to wear these getups in areas where the particular form of extremeism such garments exemplify is on the rise?

Is one to conclude that the jihadists that hacked off the breasts of Christian women were instead simply trying to liberate these women from body dysmorphic disorder?

Regarding adherents of this creed that parade about in full heathen regalia to the extent that even their faces are concealed.

What assurances does an instructor in an academic setting have that it's the same student that shows up everyday adorned in such a potentially deceptive manner.

What if a member of the Ku Klux Klan showed up making their daily rounds in public in complete costume?

Tolerancemongers will insist what the Klansman is doing is intended to excite a spirit of fear and express hatred.

But so is the Mohammedan.

For such ensembles are not donned so much out of sincere religious devotion but out of contempt for our liberties that allow such subversives to cavort about without opposition or even question.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Apparently Only Certain Deaths Worthy Of Nazarene Reflection

A Maryland Nazarene Church has posted on its Facebook page photos of candles lit for those mourning Michael Brown and in support of the work to end racism.

It might be one thing to light a candle on behalf of his memory as a human being.

However, if he had not met his parting from this world in a manner that could be exploited to further assorted politically correct agendas, would this church have lit a candle for him?

Given that his church is located in the Washington/Baltimore corridor with its own disturbingly high rate of homicide, does this church post photos of candles lit on behalf of other murder victims explicitly by name?

Tagged on to the name of Michael Brown is mention of “our work to end racism”.

There is really no proof that the Michael Brown incident had anything to do with racism.

The foremost examples of racism involved surrounding this issue were of those that rampaged in the streets of Ferguson.

Does this Nazarene church intend to post candles lit beseeching divine protection for the shopkeeper brutalized by Michael Brown in the last hour of his life and the owners of the property pillaged by his supporters?

Or has the Church of the Nazarene been so given over to the social gospel embraced by much of the Emergent Church to the extent that the leadership of this particular congregation contends that property owners get whatever they deserve at the hands of the allegedly disadvantaged?

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Analysts Rush To Defense Of NFL Player Accused Of Child Abuse

Charles Barkley insists that the beating of children by athletes should be overlooked because that form of discipline is a “Southern Black thing”.

Will he be suspended from his broadcasting duties like the correspondent that simply asked why Janay Rice would deliberately marry a known domestic abuser?

Will Black media personalities insisting that the beating of their youth by parents is just the way things are done down South insist that Paula Deen's fortune be restored because what she said in the privacy of her own home to her husband that resulted in no bodily injury is just the way things were done down South?

Since it was the way things use to be done, are those applauding the beating of a four year old to the point of bodily injury going to also tell us that it's also appropriate to deny children wholesome affection such as hugs or that to lavish attention and resources on one child to the point of neglecting other less desirable children in a family for no legitimate reason is acceptable.

Those kinds of things use to go on as well.

According to former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, the propriety of a parental action such as a beating is to be determined by the pile of money or status that accrues to the recipient of such tactilely intensive correction.

If Adrian Peterson has approximately seven children by near as many women none of which he is married to, there has obviously been some kind of shortcoming or breakdown in the parental process somewhere.

Adrian Peterson's methods of discipline are being justified or overlooked on the grounds that that was the way things were always done.

Peterson is estimated to have fathered seven children.

He refuses to disclose the answer to this question himself definitively.

Nor does it sound like he is married to any of the mothers.

In those heralded golden days of yore invoked to justify the bruising of a four year old, didn't you usually get married before procreating that prodigiously?

Perhaps we should hold off a bit before lavishing this reprobate with father of the year accolades as some in certain conservative circles seem eager to bestow upon him.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Southern Baptist Missions President Applauds Family Neglect In God's Name

In a sermon titled “The Gospel Demands Sacrifice” posted at YouTube, President of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board Daniel Platt emphasized the Gospel requirement that our love for Christ should surpass even what we have for family.

As an example, Pastor Platt praised John Bunyan who was tossed into prison for refusing to stop preaching when ordered to by Anglican authorities despite the hardship endured by his family in general and his blind child in particular.

The Christian should not deny Christ.

However, Bunyan was initially imprisoned for preaching without a license.

Whether we agree with that or not is a secondary matter.

Often in a fallen world, the situations are so bad that the individual is forced to prioritize from a list of less than ideal options.

From the Wikipedia entry on John Bunyan, one gets the impression authorities were not initially inclined to imprison Bunyan until he blurted out that he'd be out preaching again the next day.

That causes one to ponder was it necessarily Christ that Bunyan was infatuated with or the adrenaline rush one can get from a good fight.

I Timothy 5:8 admonishes that those that do not take care of their own family are worse than an infidel.

The same ones praising John Bunyan for in their minds putting Christ in a proper place above the needs of his family would turn around and heap condemnation upon others for not taking care of the Bunyan urchins.

However, shouldn't taking care of the spiritual and physical needs of these children have been the foremost life's mission of the Bunyan parents?

Why couldn't have Bunyan been as an upstanding Christian example ministering to the needs of his ailing child and instead return to spreading the Gospel to others behind the back of authorities at a later time?

Jesus did indeed counsel that the believer's love of family should look like hate in comparison to that for Him.

However, the most profound expression of devotion to Christ may be in loving our family members in those times we feel like loving them the least or get distracted by a cause we deem much more exciting than the mundane duties of this world.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, September 15, 2014

Halloween Sermon Exposes Minister's Desire For Religious Dictatorship

In part one of a sermon series titled “Halloween: A Biblical Critique Of James Jordin & American Vision”, Brian Schwertly of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America did not argue against the autumnal celebration on the traditional grounds that the celebration was pagan per say.

Rather he argued against it from the standpoint of the Reformed belief against the impropriety of man authorizing holy days not found in Scripture.

In this homily, he seemed to praise and certainly did not criticize Scottish authorities at the time of the Reformation that forbade under penalty of law those celebrating such commemorations after Presbyterianism became that nation's established church.

However, if man does not have the authority to compel extra-biblical holy days, on what grounds does one then forbid an individual from incorporating these practices as part of their individual devotion after they have been informed that observation of the day is not necessarily a requirement?

For does not Romans 14:5-6 seem to indicate that these sorts of matters are more in the realm of individual conscience?

In a sermon against Halloween, Presbyterian Brian Schwertly described a prank he use to engage in during that particular time of year where he would light a bag of, in his words, “poop” on fire and leave it on someone's porch.

Instead of remorsefully recounting this story in a tone of repentance, he actually laughed about it.

If Halloween really is as evil as the hardline Fundamentalists make it out to be, wouldn't that be the equivalent of fondly recalling before the congregation how Buffy down at the gentleman's club would twirl as she was giving him a lap dance?

Wouldn't an ultalegalist such as himself consider a person exhibiting such glee in the House of God insufficiently contrite?

Yes, he should be classified as an ultralegalist as he insinuated at another point in the sermon series that Roman Catholics and Arminians should be denied citizenship in the idealized Christian Reconstructionist regime.

In the sermon “Halloween: A Biblical Critique Of James Jordin & American Vision, Part 2”, Brian Schwertly examined the argument that Christian participation in Halloween is valid and legitimate as a way of ridiculing the power of Satan.

Schwertly contends that such a perspective is inappropriate in light of Jude 1:9 in which it is suggested that even the mightiest of angels are cautious about underestimating the Old Deluder.

However, it has been suggested that often conceptualizing of evil in a literary or narrative form similar to a fairy tale can assist the young in placing these kinds of fears and terrors in a proper perspective.

Why can't the symbology of Halloween play a similar kind of role?

But more importantly, perhaps the argument about justifying Halloween as a way of minimizing Satan's influence through good old fashioned ridicule came about as a result of the need in some of the more rigorous wings of Evangelicalism to always find itself in an “on position” in terms of some grand outreach effort or engaged in some never-ending confrontation.

Can't a kid just go out for a night dressed in costume to collect some candy without it being as if the Apocalypse was looming or the fate of the world hanging in the balance?

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Is Chief Southern Baptist Missionary More Eager To Bash America Than Convert The Heathen?

David Platt has been elected president of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board.

The pastor is also author of “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream”.

A description of the tome at Amazon.com reads, “It's easy for the American Christian to forget how Jesus said how his followers would actually live...They would, he [Jesus] said , leave behind security, money, even family for him.”

Here we go with yet another attempt to use missions not so much as a methodology to bring those in other lands to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ but rather as a pretext to bash the American way of life.

For how are those things listed above: security, money, convenience, and family any different than what the inhabitants of nearly every other country on earth desire?

If one does not consider security all that important, perhaps one should be willing to exchange places with the persecuted and slaughtered Christian populations of Iraq and Syria.

Without money and security, it is doubtful that Rev. Platt would have wiggled his way into a megachurch pastorate nor American's rich enough to purchase his reflectively narcissistic manifestos.

God has indeed blessed America with an abundance of these things that have enabled Pastor Platt to become something of a celebrity in Evangelical Christian circles but which he begrudges the remainder of his fellow countrymen and coreligionists.

Is there a reason why we must flagellate ourselves in shame because of what God has given us?

For example, on the list it is insinuated that loyalty to family even when they are not tempting you towards things forbidden by God is not so much a strength but rather a weakness.

Yet the very same leftwing religionists that applaud the renunciation of bourgeoisie values insist that we must embrace nearly every illegal that pours across the border because these new arrivals are such family oriented people (even though the relationship arrangement being admired is not so much pro-child as it is the mother being afraid to cut off carnal access whenever daddy comes home sauced three sheets to the wind).

Interestingly, most of the migrants pour here for the same things we are supposed to be wracked with guilt over like Phil Donahue for possessing.

In his acceptance of the presidency of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board (a body found nowhere in Scripture if one is going to argue how we as Christians could lead more spiritually meritorious lives if we were more willing to embrace penury and destitution), “We talk all the time at Brook Hill [the church Platt pastors] about laying down a blank check with out lives, with no strings attached, willing to go wherever He leads, give whatever He asks, and do whatever He commands in order to make His glory known among the nations.”

And that is absolutely correct.

However, that blank check is to be written out to God, not so much the prelates and functionaries operating in His name through the organized church.

As Ann Coulter quipped, how come no one can serve God in America anymore?

It is about time religious leaders stop bashing those in America leading the perfectly ordinary lives that keep the mundane operations of a complex society functioning so robustly that there exists sufficient leisure time for a particular class to arise that enjoys nothing more than to wallow in this kind of existential criticism.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, August 29, 2014

Did you see what Obama posted on his Facebook page?

I created this in less than two minutes, and I'm not that great with graphics, basic amateur. Stay tuned, the article on Townhall about it is coming out on Monday, "I Can Destroy Your Reputation and Career in Two Minutes." I will explain the next two photos then.


Thursday, August 28, 2014

Pastor Would Make Church Membership More Like Prison Sentence

According to Pastor Corey Dyksta in a sermon posted at SermonAudio.com on the topic of church membership and separation, a Christian is only allowed to withdraw membership from a congregation over profound doctrinal disagreement or error.

But what if an individual can find a church of comparable teaching that is a better subjective or existential fit?

Why should someone in the name of an outdated understanding of ecclesiastical identity renounce other components of overall well being that could increase one's comprehensive quality of life such as companionship and opportunity?

Many of these rinkydink congregations rank among the same ones that would bash an individual for going to another church for “selfish” reasons and then turn around and slug even harder with the other rhetorical fist these same souls not married by the age of 25 despite there being no one appealing in the congregation or if the person does nothing more than fill a pew in a church where there is only one Sunday school class that the pastor sits in on to shout down anyone that might raise a sincere question or differing perspective still within the parameters of Biblical acceptability.

In this sermon on church membership and separation, Pastor Dykstra insisted that the Christian is obligated to hold formalized membership in a local congregation.

He then proceeded to argue that church membership should be viewed like marriage.

However, nowhere in Scripture is one obligated to be yoked to a human spouse.

If anything, the Bible lists both the glories and downfalls of both the single and married states, allowing the individual to select for themselves the path that they believe will minimize the inevitable miseries of this life while attempting to maximize its fleeting pleasures.

In continuing the marriage analogy, Rev. Dykstra suggested that the ability to pick up and leave a church is a moral outrage comparable to no fault divorce.

Would pastors holding to such an ecclesiology prefer the dissatisfied and disenchanted just remain in the congregation and drag the whole vibe down?

Even more disturbing is the insinuation that one cannot leave without deliberate or explicit fault being assigned.

So if these ecclesiastical potentates had their way, would they smear you with some kind of mark akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter where no other church would ever take you in?

So be it.

What is to prevent the clerically dispossessed from banding together to establish their own churches?

And what if these loose associations began bearing spiritual fruit?

In the idealized theocracy or theonomy, would establishmentarian denominations use the weight of law and the use of force commonly referred to as violence inherent to the enforcement of such to destroy these fellowships?

If so, what makes those holding to such a position any better than the worst of the Medieval papalists that those of the extreme Reformist perspective spend an inordinate amount of time railing against?

In the sermon, Pastor Dykstra mentioned a sect from the time of the Reformation known as the Nicodemites, a reference to the influential Pharisee that came to Jesus who, though sincerely curious, came to Jesus in the middle of the night so as not to endanger his status and position as a member of the Sanhedrin.

This label was used to describe those drawn to the claims of the Reformed message but who were reluctant to embrace this interpretation of the Gospel for fear of leaving behind the modalities of worship and religious expression they had known their entire lives.

The term was intended to be applied condescendingly.

However, as conveyed in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, one does not get the impression that Jesus was irritated with Nicodemus for coming to Him secretively indicating potential ambivalence to the implications embracing the Messianic claims would have in the life of such a foremost Jewish voice.

Rev. Dykstra claims the label accurately describes those that waffle as to what congregation it is that they actually want to be a part of.

He goes on to assert that, when one leaves a particular church, what you are saying is that you no longer want to fellowship with the saints there.

It says nothing of the sort.

What about those that stay in the church and get their rearends so high up on their shoulders that they will no longer have anything to do with those that could have their spiritual needs better fulfilled elsewhere?

You don't need the pastor's permission to remain someone's friend.

If you are afraid that remaining friends with someone that has left the church but otherwise still walking in the faith will set minister off, other than a cordial but distance greeting each Sunday, DON'T TELL THE MINISTER THAT YOU ARE STILL THEIR FRIEND.

The world is in a profound state of turmoil and decline.

Instead of complaining about how often a particular visitor is or is not there and whether or not they have agreed to a commitment sufficiently arduous to placate the rigors of the professional religionist, perhaps it might be more prudent to convey the basics of salvation and moral living in the brief time that any particular soul might be brought into contact with a specific congregation.

By Frederick Meekin

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Should Churches Purge Members That Minister Beyond Denominational Limitations?

In response to learning of a number in her district that pursued ordination online, a United Methodist bishop posted on a blog a threat to withdraw from membership anyone she catches committing this crime against the church.

Now would that be a punishment or a reward to be forced off this sinking denominational ship?

The bishop justifies such a hardline position because, “It is an affront to those who have worked hard, studying many years in seminary, spending much money, making many personal sacrifices when others, maybe unknowingly, seek ordinations in an easy, anonymous way.”

One will note that no where in the explanation is God or Christ even mentioned.

That is because, other than the basic criteria listed in Scripture, He leaves it up to the individual to follow the path that is best suited to their own particular calling.

The United Methodist Church is only one expression of the broader Bride of Christ.

Those employed by a United Methodist Church or seeking a career in such might have to abide by the rules that the denomination establishes to determine who it allows to minister as part of its brand.

However, their exists a Christan world beyond this one principality within the larger kingdom.

So long as someone holding one of these alternative ordinations does not try to seize control of a United Methodist Church, they should use the credential to minister in any way possible that is open to them.

The average member is only in church between one and maybe three hours per week.

If someone in the remaining hours of the week wants to fill that time going about their Father's work and they for the most part profess the same basic theological and philosophical worldview as you do, it is the epitome of arrogance for you to punish them simply because they don't hold a certificate with your seal of approval emblazoned upon it.

Any church that seeks to control those not on the official payroll or those that have not agreed to the parameters of ministry within a specific denomination has come dangerously close to elevating the organizational structure above the Christ that it claims to worship.

About the best thing that could possibly happen to someone that looses their membership over such a petty and minuscule offense for simply feeling a call to ministry that ecclesiastical elites fail to recognize is to set up some kind of Methodist or Wesleyan-style church of their own.

It might not be what they have been accustomed to, however, given that these are generic theological labels or categories, should you decide to apply them along with a few distinct modifiers to create a somewhat unique variation on the given theme, there really isn't much that religious power brokers can do to stop you

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, August 18, 2014

A Moral Analysis Of Physician Assisted Suicide

It is often difficult to judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. As such, one of the most challenging situations imaginable would be for someone in optimal health to counsel the terminally ill as to the proper response to legal physician-assisted suicide.

In this contentious debate, ghouls in lab coats give those wracked with the most horrible of afflictions the impression that the only alternatives available are a life of agony or an end hastened by an IV drip. However, those in the middle of this debate who relish neither the prospects of drawn out pain nor speeding up death as an end in itself can provide a bit of solace in light of life’s most intense existential crisis for their loved ones and colleagues.

Many times if these cases are looked at more closely, one does not find someone that is all that eager to embrace death as they are to ease overwhelming physical and emotional suffering. The goal in such situations ought not be to prolong life beyond what was intended but rather to allow the person’s existential voyage to reach its conclusion at a natural pace in a more serene manner.

Therefore, the best course of treatment to counsel the terminally ill consists of the various options to control the pain. Rae points out that, though there are cases where pain cannot be controlled, these instances are rare and should not be precedent-setting examples upon which a comprehensive policy is based (188). It is Rae’s assertion that most cases can be controlled through a high-enough amount of medication.

Under the principle known as “the law of double effect”, medical personnel could be permitted to administer a sufficient quantity of drugs to alleviate the pain even if one of the possible side effects of the treatment is death (188). To some, this may sound little different than euthanasia; however, the distinction of motive is critical as the patient and medical professionals are not deliberately seeking to end life but rather to alleviate suffering aware of the knowledge that death might be an potential outcome. When you come down to it, this would not be all that more ethically ambiguous than any other risky but necessary medical procedure.

In his lectures for the Trinity Theological Seminary courses in Apologetics, John Warwick Montgomery astutely observed that each of us is more preoccupied about our own deaths and those of loved ones than we are willing to admit. Even for Christians, that appointment none will be able to avoid other than through Christ’s Second Coming might not spark as much apprehension if we had better assurances from the medical community that everything within its power was being done to make the transition into the next realm as comfortable as possible.

In regards to the issue of physician-assisted suicide, its proponents often attempt to turn the tables on their Christian opponents with the following argument: “Since Christians should show mercy and compassion, they should therefore approve of physician assisted suicide.” While this may be difficult to counter initially in light of the immense pain the terminally ill often suffer from, upon closer reflection one will realize that mercy and compassion are not as intrinsically linked with this disputed medical practice as we have been led to believe.

For starters, often the terminally ill are not so eager for a headlong rush into death as they are terrified of becoming a burden or facing the cessation of life in this world alone. Thus, in such circumstances, mercy and compassion would manifest themselves not in a desire to let the dieing do themselves in but rather by standing alongside them as an advocate against maltreatment or to stand beside them as a companion, holding the hand of the ailing letting them know they are still loved despite their failing bodies and that they will be missed each day until we ourselves will be resurrected with them in eternity where we will no more endure the sorrow of death.

If the advocates of euthanasia point out that while such efforts might diminish psychological anguish they do little to ease overwhelming pain, the Christian can respond that the goal ought not to be so much hastening death but rather directing research efforts towards addressing this physical trauma. As Rae points out, the cases where pain cannot be managed are increasingly rare; and in especially challenging cases under the principle known as “the law of double effect”, physicians are justified in increasing the patient’s level of medication to levels nullifying the pain even if one of the potential side effects is death. In such a scenario, death is not the intended result but rather an unintended consequence.

In these debates, it is often considered impolite to call someone’s motives into question. However, since the advocates of physician-assisted suicide have already insinuated that Christians leery of this practice rank up there with the Marquis De Sade for allowing suffering to continue, it would be a fair question to ask whether euthanasia’s enthusiasts are really all that concerned about the comforts of the critically ailing or simply hide behind such a seemingly humanitarian posture out of more materialistic motivations.

For despite hiding behind a cloak of compassion, many calling for physician-assisted suicide are just concerned about the bottom line, claiming that limited resources would be better directed towards salvageable human capital. As former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm said, “We have a duty to die”, no doubt emphasizing this obligation for the common man rather than his own loved ones.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Biomedical Developments Require Advanced Ethical Reflection

With advances in medical science, the line between when doctors should intervene to save a life and when they should step back to allow nature to take its course has become increasingly blurred. Since life sustaining support systems can be financially burdensome and because the average person emphatically projects themselves into such a situation and find that they are unsettled in the spirit when confronted with these devices, many make statements to their loved ones and even draw up legal documents that specify that they do not wish to receive such treatments to sustain their earthly lives. However, when the individual enunciates these kinds of concerns to their friends and family, they must be explicit as to what they desire or lawyers and related bureaucratic scavengers could very well descend around the withering remains to pick and claw as they play the word games for which their breeds are infamous amidst shades of ambiguity.

As an illustration, consider the following. A young mother with two small children has an accident one morning that does not kill her but leaves her in a coma. She is taken to the trauma center where she is placed on life support. Her husband informs the medical staff that his wife stated that she desired no treatment should she ever find herself in such a condition. Since her temperature is rising significantly, her physician believes she should be treated for an infection. Her husband does not approve.

To decide whose wishes should prevail (either her husband’s or the doctor’s), any bioethics committee called in to make a determination would first have to consider a number of factors. For starters, a bioethics committee would need to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary means of treatment.

According to Rae, ordinary means are those courses of treatment for a disease that offer a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient without being excessively burdensome; extraordinary means are those that do not offer such hope and place undue burdens on the patient (185). In other words, extraordinary means would include things such as respirators that temporarily extend a life that would come to an end without the intervention of such a device. Ordinary means would consist of those things that ordinarily sustain or improve the normal processes of life such as food and water. Antibiotics could be considered an ordinary means of treatment since these substances are administered to curb an infection threatening life and health rather than prolonging life that is beginning to fade away.

Second, the bioethics committee should look into the quality of the of relationship between husband and wife. While such a suggestion might seem nosy, in light of certain disturbing aspects of the Terri Schiavo case, it would be helpful to know whether the spouse is sincerely seeking to fulfill the wishes of their mate in these grim matters or merely looking for an easy way out to make their way on to their next victim, I mean partner.

This case is not that difficult for objective observers with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview. Administering antibiotics to fight off the infection in order to bide more time to ascertain more fully God’s future plans for this woman would be a moral obligation.

More extensive life support measures would be a decision best left to the family. The most difficult task might be educating the husband as to the distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary means. Though some might consider it presumptuous to speak on someone else’s behalf, at the time his wife made the statement about not wanting treatment if she ever found herself in such a situation, she was probably not referring to treatments such as food, water, and regular medicines but rather to things more like breathing tubes and respirators. For example, one could argue that, if the “no treatment” criteria was to be upheld as an inviolable absolute, the administration of painkillers would have to be withheld as well since these are also a form of treatment.

Furthermore, the medical professional must make it clear that it is not over until it’s over. The antibiotics do not interfere with the chain of events set into motion by the accident, the outcome of which no mortal can know for certain. Rather, these substances prevent an otherwise preventable or treatable secondary matter from overtaking the body and weakening it further. By administering the antibiotics, the family can better prepare themselves for the ultimate will of God in the life of their loved one, which could consist of any number of possible outcomes such as death, healing, or life-long disability.

Even though a number of these states may be far from what we would consider ideal and we might even question them sometimes as mere human beings, it is not our place to be the direct cause of the conclusion of the process known as life. It is rather the duty of the family and authorized caregivers to make the loved one as comfortable as possible and this is most likely what a person means when they say they do not want to be subject to all kinds of extraordinary treatments.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, August 11, 2014

Does Christian Compassion Demand Uncritical Exposure To Ebola?

In an episode of the News In Focus program produced by the Berea Baptist Church posted at SermonAudio.com, Pastor Joey Kellett offered a few remarks regarding the ebola outbreak.

For the most part, the minister condemned those such as Donald Trump as well as a number of Christians that questioned the wisdom of bringing into the United States a number of missionaries that have contracted the pestilence but not yet succumbed to the ravages.

According to the Pastor, politeness and compassion are more paramount than health and survival.

It probably won't be long if one does not want to be excommunicated that the sincere believer will be expected to sip from the same communion chalice as the souls with this particular affliction.

Those such as Rev. Kellett justify their position with appeals to passages admonishing mercy for the suffering and the examples set by these missionaries that fell ill as a result of their ministerial outreach to the less fortunate.

But what about verses and teaching that counsel the protection of one's own family as one's highest earthly priority?

Human empathy and spiritual sensitivity prompt the believer to hope and pray that these servants of God make a full recovery.

However, these missionaries made their own respective choice about subjecting themselves to these dangers.

That choice is not one being extended to the average American, whom this pastor is telling those that do not agree with flinging the doors wide open to the most horrifying of diseases, to sit down and shut up.

These average Americans (not the elites implementing these transformational policies who will be whisked away to lavish underground resorts in a time of crisis) who will be gunned down in the streets by FEMA purification squads or forced to languish in hemorrhagic agony in quarantine death camps.

For decades, the average Christian has sat quietly in the pews enduring many an outlandish claim and denunciations of the American way of life by these missionaries that expect the harangued to bankroll their pietistic wanderlust.

We should at the very least be granted the courtesy of being allowed to voice our concerns when these adventures abroad result in the most vile forms of Third World death being brought to the hallowed shores.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, August 4, 2014

Turpitude Or Lack Thereof Should Have No Bearing On Asylum For Illegals

A blurb accompanying the lead editorial of the 8/6/2014 issue of the Christian Century admonishes “The children crossing the border are refugees, not criminals.”

Unless an instantaneous background check is conducted, how can that conclusion be made for certain?

Is one to conclude that the migrants with the facial tattoos are simply expressing their childhood enthusiasm for the Mexican equivalent of Bozo the Clown or Ronald McDonald?

Liberal academics and clergy often berate the American public for what such relativists consider the impropriety of applying our own standards to other cultures.

Thus, why are we to assume youngsters crossing at the border are sweet and innocent?

Years ago, a 15 year old and a 13 year old threatened to murder me for not assuming a sufficiently docile posture upon crossing their path.

That is well within the age range that the Obama administration and the immigrant concessions racket insist we are to refrain from scrutinizing with our critical faculties.

Even if those violating the border were of a character that would make the Virgin Mary seem like Jezebel or Delilah in comparison, that is not the issue.

The United States can only allow admittance to a select number in an orderly manner to be determined by the American people or it will eventually cease to be a viable nation-state altogether.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Evolutionists Outraged At County Fair Creation Science Displays

The July 2014 cover story of Earth: The Magazine Of The American Geosciences Institute warns “Creationism Comes To The County Fair'.

It is further cautioned “County fairs have proved good places for creationists to reach captive audiences”.

But aren't these venues less captive than those in which evolutionists purvey their own propaganda?

For example, no one is forced to attend the county fair.

However, unless a child's parents are able to scrimp together the tuition necessary to finance private education or are talented enough to educate their own children through homeschool, the vast majority of students will be bombarded by public school indoctrination where the science curriculum exudes doctrinaire Darwinism.

Secondly, if you attend the county fair and an offensive both grabs your attention, you are free to speed by.

However, if a child wants to successfully complete school, he must remain subjected to this teaching no matter how much it might ridicule the child's most deeply held beliefs.

Thirdly, organizations must pay for the use of county fair booths.

However, educators are paid from public funds to ply the naturalistic perspective. County fairs are held in part in celebration of rural culture and values.

As such, as areas characterized by deep religious faith, creation science ministries and organizations should be encouraged to highlight this particular aspect of the American philosophical landscape.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, July 28, 2014

A Christian Approach To Technology

In Jurassic Park, the chaos theorist played by Jeff Goldblum quipped that scientists were in such a hurry to find out if they could that they never took the time to consider whether they should when it came to resurrecting extinct dinosaurs through genetic cloning technology. The comment was quite profound as it also has considerable bearing on the application of similar technologies to the human species as well.

Futurists have estimated that nearly 90% of the knowledge today has been discovered within the past decade. This is especially true of scientifically complex fields such as biology and medicine.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy concerned with determining what is right and wrong. Bioethics attempts to apply these principles to issues relating to matters of life, its quality, and preservation. As such, it is a relatively new field of inquiry coming to prominence since the 1980’s.

As a new discipline, overall bioethics is underdeveloped with Christian involvement scantier than it ought to be. With its frontier flavor however, bioethics is not confined solely to those with doctorates in esoteric subjects. Rather it is a field needing input from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives if mankind is to chart a balanced course into what was before now unexplored territory.

For example, many couples unable to have children on their own have turned to a number of fertilization techniques where egg and sperm are brought together outside the body for implantation inside the womb. While the practice has become quite commonplace, it is in fact fraught with a number of ethical dilemmas that need to be addressed by the church.

For starters, the reader will note that nowhere above is it spelled out that the sperm and the egg belong to the husband and the wife of the couple seeking to have a child. Sometimes these are donated --- often bought and sold like farm produce --- from total strangers, undermining the sanctity of the marriage covenant and no doubt unsettling the identity of the child should the offspring ever learn of his true parentage.

Yet of even greater concern in these procedures is when more eggs are fertilized than are needed. Since it can be concluded from Matthew 1:20 that fertilized eggs posses life, quite a dilemma develops over what to do with the leftover embryos.

If these individuals are disposed of, it becomes an act of murder. They can be placed into storage for up to seven years if the couple would like to have an additional baby in the future; but what happens if the couple divorces?

These conundrums and many others just like it are the result of the underlying worldview upon which much of contemporary culture rests. For since the days of the Renaissance, up through the Enlightenment and French Revolution and no doubt accelerated by Darwinism, no longer is God and His Word seen as the ultimate source of moral authority. Rather, the moral focus has switched to human autonomy in either the form of the individual or the state.

In the Book of Genesis, the student of Scripture learns that man is created in the image of God. As such, upholding this ideal preempts individual happiness when personal satisfaction comes into conflict with innocent human life.

Unfortunately, in this day the preservation of innocent human life often takes a backseat to “I want” and “me, me, me”. Such anxiety can drive the longing soul inward to concentrate on one’s own existential despair rather than outward towards those with even greater needs.

For example, a couple unable to have children on their own biologically wanting to have one --- often pressured into it by members of the congregation and clergy thinking they know more about the will of God for other people than the people themselves --- often turn to artificial fertilization these days rather than other ways to satisfy an otherwise humanitarian impulse such as adoption or other charitable pursuits.

Likewise, at the other end of the continuum of selfishness are those that, rather than coveting life so much that they would dishonor it by an illegitimate attempt to grasp at and possess it on their own terms rather than through God’s providence, that view life needing care beyond the ordinary in order to be maintained such as that at the beginning or end of temporal existence as an inconvenience to be done away with as soon as possible.

Those holding to the Biblical position of respecting the image of God within each individual irrespective of the physical frame’s condition would do what was within their power to defend the young under their responsibility and lend comfort to those passing out of this life on God’s timetable rather than according to some arbitrary definition of quality.

Furthermore, if those in their declining years were treated as human beings created in the image of God rather than as beasts of burden that have outlived their usefulness, senior saints might enjoy a better quality of life irrespective of their bodily circumstances.

By Frederick Meekins