Wednesday, November 25, 2015
In a column at his website FireBreathingChristian, Buss writes, “We see porn shops and strip clubs operating all across the fruited plain in direct violation of God's word.”
Those strip clubs are the fault of their owners and those that frequent them.
If you are Christian and you do not, you have nothing to answer for in regards to such smut peddling.
Even more disturbingly he writes, “We read about Muslims, witches, and even Satantists openly worshiping their false gods in the land in the name of all American/anti-Christian versions of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.”
Linked to that column is another titled “There Is No God Given Right To Worship False Gods.”
It would depend upon what is meant by that.
If that means that, after a life spent as an adherent of a false religion you go to Hell when you die, that is a correct statement.
But by that his pronouncement does Buss mean that the governing authorities should punish those advocating a perspective other than the religion officially sanctioned by those holding power?
In his condemnation of religious liberty, Buss insists that it is the epitome of statism to allow the adherents of non-Christian religions to worship publicly.
But what social institution would be charged with enforcing the law against those violating these statutes in his idealized Christian regime?
How is what he suggests little different than Iran that utilizes force, violence, and compulsion in the attempt to impose theological purity and uniformity?
The case can be made that there is less in the New Testament urging these as the preferred methods of evangelistic outrage than the long hair with which Buss is depicted in a number of photographs which Holy Writ counsels is a shame on a man.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The Baptist Press of the Southern Baptist Convention attempted to do this in regards to Cecil the Lion in an article titled “Lion's Death Occasions Defense Of Legal Hunting” by that news service's chief correspondent David Roach. Overall the examination of the topic was quite balanced.
On the one hand, the article recognized that the Bible allows for hunting in that man in this dispensation has permission to use the animals with which we share the world for our benefit and enjoyment. However, the article also pointed out that this activity must be undertaken only with a sense of solemnity and responsibility.
The really discerning theologian goes beyond what is plainly said to shine light on that which might not be noticed so easily.
Accompanying the text is a photo of former Southern Baptist Convention president and president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Paige Patterson. The caption reads, “Paige Patterson and his son Armour killed a roam antelope during a hunt in Zambia.”
Patterson was interviewed to provide a great deal of the article's theological context. Of his analysis, one really can't find much fault.
However, it really should be pointed out that the variety of antelope depicted in the accompanying photograph aren't known for a territory that overlaps geographically with the ecclesiastical stronghold of the Southern Baptist Convention in, well, the American South. That would mean that, in order to get within rifle range of such a creature, Paige Patterson would be required to travel a considerable distance.
There is nothing inherently wrong or morally alarming about travel. It is, in fact, one of the great blessings of the contemporary era that people can travel in a matter of hours distances that in decades or centuries past would have taken days, weeks, or even months.
However, the question must be asked. With what funds did the Pattersons travel to Zambia where they recreationally killed one of God's creatures? Did these funds come out of their own pockets or were these collected under the banner of some grandiose missionary outreach effort for the purposes of reaching the lost in the forsaken corners of the Third World?
Concern over this is sparked in part over the way in which conservative Evangelicals such as Southern and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists raise funds to conduct missionary outreach. No longer is the spiel formulate, “Look at those poor savages languishing in squalor. If you could spare a little, we might be able to increase their quality of life and also try to convince them that they need Jesus rather than their heathen witchdoctor to keep them out of Hell.”
Now, the missionary bordering on the fanatical blows into your church and drums up support for their overseas expedition by laying a guilt trip on the pewfillers as to how wretched the American culture and way of life is because the Land of the Free is not characterized by these Third World deprivations. By the time that the presentation is concluded, the donations are not collected so much to better the lives of the less fortunate but rather as some kind of penance for you having committed the sin of having been born in the United States. It is almost as if you are expected to thank these foreigners for accepting your money rather than the foreigners thanking you for your willingness to give.
Even if Paige Patterson is as clean as the wind-driven snow in terms of how the funds were obtained to finance this hunting safari, the issue is not settled. For to Patterson the professional religionist, your money that you earn is not yours to do with as you please within the parameters of morality even after you tithe or slip a little into the collection plate.
Rather, much of what you have is to be at the ready disposal of your ecclesiastical betters. Patterson has insinuated as such in a number of epistolary appeals.
One of these letters is titled “Ten Things That We Owe Dr. David Platt.” These are essentially ten disturbingly cultish pledges Dr. Patterson believes Southern Baptists are obligated to undertake in relation to the denomination's International Missions Board President David Platt.
Propositions seven and eight are particularly relevant in regard to this issue at hand.
Number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and within our power.” Principle number eight spells this out in more detail as it reads, “Willingness to make sacrifices in order to extend the kingdom of our Lord...and if the gospel is to go to the people of the world, without question Southern Baptists who believe in the world mission enterprise must be prepared for even more sacrifices.”
So whereas you are expected to flagellate yourself over and over in your mind as to whether or not you really need that day trip to the beach this year, Paige Patterson and his son expended the resources necessary to fly themselves to Africa. For despite such near messianic fervor lavished upon David Platt, it is doubtful that even his most enthusiastic supporters are able to walk on water.
Those conditioned to blithely accept nearly anything done by those anointed to these ecclesiastical offices will respond that Patterson might have been among the deprived heathen as part of some grand missionary undertaking. Surely such a servant of God has earned the right to relax in a manner of his own choosing.
In an open letter addressed to Southern Baptists regarding this topic to which Patterson is a signatory, it is written, “Revivalist and church historian Lewis Drummond once asked whether we would be willing to see our country brought to its knees financially if that is what it takes for revival to come to America. This may be that day.”
What such religious leaders are saying is that they hope to see you starving in the streets in the hopes that such suffering will break your will and bring you into compliance with the ecclesiastical elites. Don't worry though. Such prominent fat cats will not only always eat well but will continue to enjoy the privileges you are obligated to deny yourself such as opulent vacations such as oh, I don't really know, perhaps HUNTING SAFARIS TO AFRICA.
It is doubtful anyone in the upper echelons of the Southern Baptist Convention eats from discount grocery chains. In fact, at one time Russell Moore penned an article sneering down his nose at those frequenting such retailers as a way to stretch their nutrition dollar. One must ask is he as critical of those that do not so much hunt as way to provide subsistence for their families but rather as an excuse trot halfway around the globe for mere pleasure?
Paige Patterson is to be commended for his balanced yet eloquent consideration of the moral complexities surrounding the hunting issue. Let us hope that the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention would be less pushy in those areas of life where the explicit oracles of God do not necessarily say as much as these theologians would lead those under their teaching to believe.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Such measures raise a number of questions and observations.
Firstly, why is it acceptable to smoke in a vehicle with an 8 year old child but wrong to do so around a seven and a half year old?
Secondly, if you can't smoke around children in a car, who is to say what other legal and decent activities you will eventually be forbidden from enjoying in the presence of minors?
In order to indoctrinate children as sufficiently communal, what is then to prevent the state from forbidding the playing of political talk radio in the presence of anyone under the age of 18?
To ensure that children are indoctrinated to make what Frau Obama considers to be appropriate nutritional selections, what is to prevent legislation that would forbid the consumption of fast food in the presence of minors?
Thirdly, does this mean parents would be required to have an official ID to prove the ages of their children.
Because do seven and eight year olds really look all that different?
If so, why is this appropriate but not requiring adults to show photo ID's when voting?
For is not the health of a constitutional democratic republic as delicate as that of a young child?
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 26, 2015
The minister then snidely remarked that we don't want that but would rather have our own rights.
The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.
However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.
For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?
What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?
Is he going to slink away without even a protest?
Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 22, 2015
For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.
Fine and dandy.
However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.
In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.
Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.
This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.
Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?
It's just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 5, 2015
A few are just common courtesy such as not scarfing down mouthfuls of popcorn in a movie theater while others are trying to watch the feature presentation.
Others are just a bunch of foo foo nonsense that one would expect from the New York Times.
For example, if I don't want to eat the fatty or charred bits of a steak or if I drink Mountain Dew as a preferred soda, that is my business.
It is, after all, my individual digestive tract.
Another reads, “The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say 'helicopter,' not 'chopper' like some gauche simpleton.”
Frankly, how often does a man concerned about being perceived as one verbalize the word “gauche”?
A number were downright hypocritical and dangerous when taken together.
Principle sixteen reads, “The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.”
Yet principle twenty-five instructs, “The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.”
What about to shoot AND KILL the intruder?
A husband might have a moral obligation to defend his family.
However, he should also be allowed the most technologically effective means to accomplish this task that will likely result in the least amount of physical harm to himself.
There is no reason that a man is obligated to die for some other idiot's moronic principle that has nothing whatsoever to do with the way the world actually exists.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 28, 2015
The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.
No, they are not “our children”.
They most likely “belong” to Mexico.
The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.
The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized arrangements such adoption and foster care.
The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”
This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”
If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay marriage and ordination as well as abortion?
For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions regarding the treatment of strangers.
The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.
It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.
So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and urinal?
There is a proper way of doing things.
It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.
Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.
The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.
In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.
Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”
It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.
Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.
As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.
Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.
Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.
As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.
Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”
Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?
With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.
To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .
While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.
In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.
Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Too bad he didn't starve to death.
That's so harsh, leftists will snap.
It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.
No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.
Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.
However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.
According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?
Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.
In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”
In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.
Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Book Review of Blessings, Miracles and Supernatural Experiences: A Biblical Perspective, A Christian's Story
Blessings, Miracles & Supernatural Experiences is a fascinating, in-depth look at miracles from God, and more specifically what it means to have God on your side and in your life. Many examples are given of dangerous situations Christopher H.K. Persaud encountered growing up and living in British Guiana (now known as Guyana), best known as the site of the Jim Jones People’s Temple massacre. It was a Third World rural country and so hospitals were minimal and doctors were scarce. Therefore, when an accident or severe illness took place, it often was life threatening. The faith of Persaud and his family prevented many a tragedy. Examples include a serious motor vehicle accident which Persaud was involved in, a missing child, almost catastrophic episodes of seizures, and other medical issues. The most interesting to me is the instances of demonic possession of acquaintances of Persaud and actual sightings of ghosts or other entities.
In all cases Persaud makes it very clear. Only by calling on the name of Jesus can we escape the worst that the spirit world has to throw at us. He has done a thorough job with Blessings, Miracles & Supernatural Experiences and provides many references of Scripture from the Bible, in addition to well-known Bible scholars and evangelists, to back up his statements and stories. This book would be a good addition to the libraries of Christians, particularly if they are in the mission field, as people accomplishing great things for the Christian kingdom are often attacked by the demonic world. Blessings, Miracles & Supernatural Experiences will let readers know what can happen and how to pray against attacks.
Names such as Darwin and Einstein will immediately be associated with a heightened mental acuity and scientific authority until one reads Christopher H.K. Persaud’s Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science, a compelling and insightful book that systematically unveils loopholes in the theory of evolution. Drawing from the history of science and the authority of the Bible, the author makes a critical analysis of the long-standing theory of evolution, leading readers to discover to their utter surprise the many unanswered questions about the origin of life and the world as a whole.
In Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science, Christopher H.K. Persaud comes across as a powerful authority in the fields of Bible prophecy, creationism, and the origins of life and the universe. At a time when many theories creep up and when science and technology appear to be the primary points of reference in the quest for truth, this book will be the lambent light to those whose minds are still steeped in darkness and confusion, asking questions about the origin and end of life.
This is a book that will fill the many gaps left by science, one that will help anyone seeking for answers to come to grips with the mystery of life. Persaud has masterfully demonstrated that beyond the tiniest particle, beyond the many scientific theories, beyond myth and religion, there will always be a point of mystery, a question mark that points to the venerable face of the Creator. Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science is an engaging, fact-filled, and easy-to-read treatise that is highly relevant to this time and age, a most-needed companion to theologians, scientists, historians, and every seeker of truth.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
A number of the bewildered questioned how a liberty such as the right to bear arms as enshrined by the Second Amendment could be allowed in the U.S. Constitution. Precisely to serve as a protection and bulwark against the systematic execution of dissidents as has transpired in the People's Republic of China throughout that regime's history.
The Mexican newspaper La Jornada was quoted as saying that the United States has become a “structurally violent state where force is frequently used domestically and internationally to resolve differences.” Mind you, Mexico is a Latin American country where it is not uncommon for narcoterrorists to role decapitated heads out onto disco dance floors in order to intimidate their opponents.
Law enforcement in that corrupt land are little better. Often, there, so-called public safety officers sexually brutalize immigrants from other nations while the leadership of this neighbor to our south lectures us as to why we are to lavish upon the riffraff fleeing that failed state with the proverbial three hots and a cot while they await their single family split-level which they will proceed to stuff to the rafters with half the population of their native village.
And speaking of severed heads, dead beats from the Islamic world also proceeded to weigh in on the Charleston Church shooting as if violence never breaks out in regions where the majority of the population embraces that particular errant religion.
One Indonesian intellectual bemoaned that the tragedy shocked many. But more so than the decapitation and ghastly execution videos perfected by Al Qada and now the organization's ISIS spin off as a propaganda technique?
The article went on to say, “In Britain, the attack reinforced the view that America has too many guns and too many racists” and “the obscene proliferation of guns only magnifies tragedies.”
For you see, the residents of Britain tend to be a bit old fashioned when they want to kill someone for harboring beliefs with which they disagree. They just grab personnel from a nearby military base and knife them along the side of the road as they proceed to videotape a pronouncement drenched in their victim's blood. This must be considered across the pond the epitome of artisinal craftsmanship and civility.
Of the shootings, an interviewed Japanese patent attorney reflected, “Racially motivated killings are simply something the Japanese as a people cannot understand.” As an ethnicity inclined towards economics and efficiency, one supposes so. After all, why outrightly murder someone when they can make perfectly acceptable sex slaves first, a fate inflicted upon numerous Koreans forced to serve as “comfort women”.
Critics will respond that that atrocity was decades ago. Indeed it was. Just as were the shortcomings that assorted minority front groups and agitators continue to harp upon no matter how many set asiides and entitlement programs are lavished upon them.
Of the shooting, a Philippine human rights activist said, “That would be no different from a suicide bomber. For a jihadist says, 'I will be with Allah if I do that.' The other says, 'I am proving white supremacy here'.”
That comparison depends upon how you look at it.
The comparison between the jihadist and mass murderer Dylan Roof is accurate from the standpoint of each of these terrorists having embraced false belief systems inspiring each adherent to perpetrate the vilest of acts violating God's eternal absolutes in the pursuit of a Satanic objective. However, there are also differences that the astute observer of this kind of phenomena must be diligent to point out.
Across America, even those willing to take a stand on behalf of the Confederate flag (despite the almost dictatorial opposition galvanized against this symbol of Southern heritage) are repulsed and sickened by the actions of human pus wad Dylan Roof. If anything, these “rednecks” and “hayseeds” are among the few trodding this earth consistent in their call to apply the death penalty against anyone that takes an innocent human life.
However, things are markedly different in the Muslim world. There, on 9/11, exuberant Palestinians took to the streets in celebration. The way children were given candy to commemorate the event brings to mind the prophecy in the Book of Revelation when gifts will be exchanged to celebrate the Anti-Christ executing the Two Witnesses whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem until they are risen from the dead for all the world to see.
To his credit, one Indonesian intellectual said, “Terrorism and radicalism can appear in every strata of society under various guises and in the name of ethnicity, religion and race.”
Those pulling the trigger or lighting the fuse to harm the body and stoke the initial fear are obviously the most guilty in regards to this profound variety of crime. However, the greater injury inflicted might instead be by those attempting to capitalize on these tragedies to manipulate those freedoms much easier to surrender than they will be to back once the immediate danger has passed.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 24, 2015
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
The broadcaster confessed that, given what he knows of Campolo and the Word of God today, he would probably no longer read anything by Campolo.
Most Christians grounded in the Word of God and sound theology realize that Campolo is a borderline apostate if he hasn't already crossed over the line altogether.
If someone wants to avoid Campolo's works, so be it.
That's one's right in a free society.
However, such a proclamation in such a manner as to create the impression that no one ought to read these kinds of works under any circumstances if they want to retain good standing as a member of the broader conservative Evangelical community goes a bit overboard.
Regarding religious leftists such as Tony Campolo, should one decide to read works by such an author, the discerning must remain cautious to subtle error that says as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.
In other words, sometimes you have got to read between the lines.
But unless we ourselves conduct our own research or, perhaps more importantly are encouraged ourselves to do so, how can we be sure that those stymieing individual reflection and curiosity aren't simply out to control us for their own assorted ends?
The call to be like the Bereans requires nothing short of such sanctified suspicion on our own parts.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 10, 2015
And with the level of blind devotion called for on the part of a number of prominent Southern Baptist personalities, things are not going to end well.
From a number of statements made by former Southern Baptist Convention President and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, it is doubtful most Roman Catholics follow the Pope as uncritically.
For example, Patterson issued an ultimatum of ten demands that Southern Baptists are expected to abide by in relation to David Platt.
For example, obligation number four reads, “Recognition that there is not a more important man in the world than the President of the International Missions Board because of his potential to touch so many lives...for God.”
In that position, Platt is essentially an administrator and bureaucrat.
Should the President of the United States be praised for the brave acts of the American soldier?
Then why praise Platt over the toils of the frontline missionary?
Another demand made by Patterson in his ultimatum is even more disturbing.
Demand number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Dr. Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and is within our power.”
Ladies and gentleman, feel free to listen to anything David Platt has to say.
However, in the final analysis, make up your own mind as to what you will do with what the Lord has given you.
You answer to the Lord Jesus Christ, not David Platt, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other organized church body.
For while David Platt is essentially teaching that anyone responding with anything less than a willingness to serve as canon fodder for God (as He no doubt whispers in Pastor Platt's ear) is a urine deprived excuse of a Christian, if Brother Patterson had had his way, the seminary Patterson heads would have opened its doors to eventual Islamist takeover.
Some will snap that these kinds of observations are inaccurate or over exaggerated.
However, nearly every cult tragedy or church abuse scandal began with these kinds of claims and admonitions suggesting how some particular leader was so far beyond the mere pewfillers in terms of spirituality who were obligated to bow at the feet of the exalted guru.
My advice to you is that it might be best to avoid Kool Aid offered either by David Platt or his more enthusiastic supporters.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 24, 2015
Previously, the leadership of this congregation in the heart of Dixie came out firmly against the Confederate Flag.
However, this headlong march into a globalist progressivism did not stop there.
For the pastor, who doesn't seem to mind shoving mention of his distinguished military career in your face when he thinks the invocation of such should earn him some due deference, mentioned that he was not too keen on Christians swearing allegiance to the American flag either.
In his tirade, the minister propagated the impression that Old Glory does not necessarily represent the higher values upon which the nation rests but rather whatever regime might be holding power at any given moment.
But even Christians now trying to get their priorities in order while retaining a place of honor for the American flag but in subordination to the Christian flag are not immune from this particular church's derision and contempt.
In the analysis of a church that flies the Christian flag in this manner, it was snorted that doing so might cause offense and that God does not need a flag.
Should an activist Jew travel by Pastor Sean Harris' church and not want to be bothered by the sight of a steeple, should his congregation rush to take that symbol down as well to eagerly comply with the tyranny closing in around them?
After all, God doesn't require a steeple either.
There is nothing in Scripture about churches holding expansive properties rivaling some shopping centers or even small amusement parks in size.
God is perfectly fine with small bands meeting in tiny churches or even catacombs.
Does that mean Pastor Harris and his dutiful sidekicks are going to gleefully applaud the seizure of their building for the establishment of an atheist museum as occurred in the case of the former Soviet Union or perhaps the erection of a gay pride center which might be more fitting in light of the particular variety of carnality and licentious unbelief epidemic to this particular moment in history?
One of the assistant pastors confessed that he was not comfortable pledging to a Christian flag either.
Then shouldn't we be leery of making all sorts of church membership vows and pledges when these are mentioned no where in the pages of Scripture?
Perhaps one of the most interesting things about a church that is taking such a public stance against the American flag is that on its SermonAudio profile page there is a picture of that church building where there isn't simply a single tasteful flagpole with the national ensign flying in front of the church but rather at least four or five American flags.
It was argued in the exposition in condemnation of flags that a sanctuary should be laid out and adorned in such a fashion that a Christian from a foreign land (Palestine was given as an example) would not be offended by any potential Americana such as the flag.
Christian or not, if a Palestinian comes into an American church and gets jacked out of shape at explicitly American paraphernalia, he can slink back to his Third World terrorist-sympathizer excrement pile.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Yet, in the past, a number of commencement addresses have provided a bit of an historical snapshot into the perspectives of the foremost leaders and thinkers of the respective time. Perhaps the most prominent that comes to mind is none other than Winston Churchill's describing the advancement of the Soviet bloc across Europe as an Iron Curtain.
Likewise, though for considerably less auspicious reasons, First Lady Michelle Obama's Oberlin College commencement oration provides considerable insight into our own political era. The speech also serves as evidence that the First Lady is hardly the first rate intellect propagandists have made her out to be.
The Gettysburg Address begins, “Four score and seven years ago.” The Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self evident.”
Not every piece of public rhetoric is going to stir the soul with such inspiration. But with the opening of “Hi! How are you all doing?”, it is obvious that the First Lady didn't even bother to try.
It's not like there is probably all that much going on in Michelle Obama's brain to begin with. For despite all of the wisdom that a graduation speaker of her status can attempt to impart to the assembled before her, she launches into the same manner of tirade she and her consort Barack have invoked throughout the course of his presidency to manipulate those mesmerized by them into surrendering whatever it is that the couple desires.
For nearly the first thing out of her mouth beyond that idiotic greeting that reminds one more of the quack doctor Nick Riviera on the Simpsons rather than a leader worthy of any kind of admiration was in essence the First Couple's usual pronouncement of “Look at me. I'm Black. And you are racist if you don't comply with our demands no matter how ridiculous or outlandish they might be.”
Her proclamation was not articulated that way exactly. However, that categorization was an accurate summary of what did follow.
The First Lady pointed out that Oberlin was the first college in America to view Blacks and women as legitimate students. However, seldom are the Obama's interested in history that does not either further their agenda or manipulate spineless Whites into compliance.
For in her commencement oration, the First Lady did not reference this historic fact for the purposes of reminding what the individual is capable of through the processes of scholastic advancement and personal improvement. Rather, Michelle Obama proceeded to harp upon the necessity of compliance with the collective and agitation on the part of the herd mentality.
The First Lady warned, “And the truth is, graduates, after four years of thoughtful, respectful discussion and debate here at Oberlin...you might find yourself a little dismayed by the clamor outside of these walls --- the name calling, the negative ads, the folks yelling at each other on TV. After being surrounded by people who are so dedicated to serving others and making the world a better place, you might feel a little discouraged by the polarization and gridlock that too often characterize our politics and civic life.”
Maybe so. But if the world outside the campus is discordant and filled with conflict, those embracing the worldview and policies of the First Lady are just as guilty (if not even more so) for making it that way.
One particular question raised by those turning a critical mind to Michelle Obama's diatribe is on what grounds are things obligated to be as the First Lady prefers them?
In the portion of the speech just quoted, Frau Obama rhetorically crafts the impression that those not relenting to the social vision of leftwing academics somehow do not want to serve others or make the world a better place. This is especially relevant when the assembled she is addressing rank among the foremost in insisting that absolute standards do not exist or are determined by the prevailing demagogue of the moment.
Frau Obama continued, “...you don't get to be...cautious or cynical.” The question must be asked, “And what if we are?”
For what the First Lady is saying when she invokes the words “cautious” and “cynical” is that you are not to question the social engineering directives when these are handed down by elites. Your's is not to reason why; your's is but to do or die.
To the likes of Obama and related totalitarians, the ideal is best visualized in a scene from the movie “Conan The Barbarian”.
In the particular sequence, Thulsa Doom (played by James Earl Jones) signals to one of his cult followers to come to him immediately. The deluded acolyte doesn't descend the winding staircase. Instead, without hesitation, the doomed soul voluntarily plunges to his death gleefully to satisfy the whim of his master and false god.
Frau Obama reflected, “Are you planning to rally for marriage equality on the steps of the Supreme Court? I certainly hope so.” She continued, “Just think about the folks who are winning those battles...to ensure that everyone in this country can marry the person they love. Think about how just 10 years ago, gay marriage was legal in just one state...and today it is legal...”
And wasn't her husband at the time numbered among those that counseled against the recognition of such illicit unions? If so, shouldn't he be removed from office in the same manner as the Mozilla executive that did nothing more subversive than contribute to a referendum initiative that opposed gay marriage before the matter became part of the settled orthodoxy few possess the courage to question for fear of what will happen to their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor?
What is it, then, that makes these positions right or wrong? Is it the whims of the mob?
If so, those opposing the capriciousness of the First Lady are well within their rights to be as cynical and cautious as they want to be. For there exists no basis of rationality from which the First Lady can legitimately launch her criticisms and assaults.
Are these principles grounded in some kind of basis that will outlast the arbitrary tyranny unfolding around us (gentler as it might be at the moment but which Friedrich Hayek warned would grow increasingly violent as the policies imposed would grow increasingly at odds with human nature)? If so, those that the First Lady and her devotees would rather intimidate into silence are obligated in the name of higher truth to avail themselves of every moral means to defend such eternal verities.
In the Obamaist perspective, the individual exists as little more than grist for the elites to grind down as they see fit. The First Lady fondly recalled, “Think about those elections in 2008 and 2012 when idealistic young people ... worked for hours for little money and less sleep ... Think about the millions of folks who got out to vote on Election Day, waiting in the cold and rain in lines that stretched for hours, refusing to leave until they made their voices heard.”
And for what? Did the First Lady endure similar suffering and deprivation?
If anything, she made out like a bandit. During the couple's occupation of the White House, they have taken multiple high-priced vacations, flown in pizza chefs from Chicago, and procured evening gowns costing thousands upon thousands of dollars.
Under the rule of the Obamas, most Americans (especially those that did not vote for Barack to begin with) have had the enjoyment of their own petty lives significantly curtailed. For whereas in the age prior to skyrocketing fuel and food costs one might have gone to a place like Walmart quite regularly, now it seems one might get to such an establishment about four times per year.
Towards the conclusion of her oration, Frau Obama declared, “And I want to be clear: Every ordinance, every ballot measure, every law on the books in this country --- that is your concern.”
That sounds noble and inspirational upon an initial hearing. For example, if some corrupt backwoods sheriff deprives someone of a different color of their constitutional protections elaborated upon in the Bill Of Rights, it ought to bother you whether you are from New York City or the cotton fields of Georgia.
But just how deeply do you want people from other parts of the country probing into the nuts and bolts mechanics of your local government or even way of life?
For example, those in more liberal areas such as New York City or San Francisco might assume that it is their business what children in Appalachia are taught regarding evolution and creation science. But conversely, should Rednecks have an appreciable say as to whether or not someone should be allowed to walk down the streets of such urban centers brandishing so-called “assault weapons” without the police being allowed to say one thing whatsoever to such individuals?
Towards the conclusion of her oration, Michelle Obama admonished, “Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.” Ironically, it is through compliance with that very axiom that true patriots must continue to expose this First Couple for what they are as their regime draws to a close and why Americans must remain vigilant as Barack and Michelle will no doubt continue to undermine our freedoms from the shadows of private life once they leave office.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
The idea is that the role of the Cathedral is not so much to serve as an historical memorial but rather as a tool of propaganda to subliminally manipulate those exposed to the edifice into embracing the revolutionary consciousness preferred by the prevailing elite.
If the windows commemorating the Confederacy are to come down, should the body of Woodrow Wilson be disinterred from its resting place in these formerly holy halls?
After all, was not the former president a segregationist, so much so that he resegregated the civil service?
But then again, his corpse will probably be allowed to remain given that he embraced the preferred mindset of this cathedral's religion that the masses of humanity exist to be molded and conditioned by the technocrats ruling over them.
While we are at it, perhaps the questions should be raised as to how long until the Cathedral tosses its Christian iconography out with the morning trash as well?
After all, Gary Hall, the Dean of the Cathedral, is on record in the Washington Post claiming to be a Christian atheist, meaning that he doesn't believe in God but not so much so as to forsake his comfortable church-provided lifestyle.
His ecclesiastical superior, Bishop Mariann Budde, is little better.
According to VirtueOnline, she recently blasphemed in the Cathedral by admitting during an ordination service that she no longer prays in the name of the Trinity.
And on the day the cross is taken down, you will probably find Republican presidential candidates stepping over each other in the rush to get to the microphone to posture and preen how wonderful it is that the old emblem of suffering and shame will no longer be allowed to sew division among the creeds and faiths of the human species.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, June 15, 2015
It was interesting to hear the lecturer wiggle herself out of the conundrum by invoking the technicality that genocide is the killing of people because they are members of a particular group while abortion does not necessarily target the victim for extermination for that particular reason.
That is, of course, unless you are a confirmed Sangerian.
According to the logic elaborated in the response, it is only wrong to eliminate groups and not necessarily individuals.
The propagandist proceeded to elaborate a number of criteria separating abortion from genocide.
Among these were the rights of the woman and how the unborn child is not a human life that can exist on its own.
But how are these appreciably different than the justifications invoked by the Nazis such as living space for the German people and that the inhabitants of these targeted areas weren't really humans capable of surviving on their own either by the standards of that particular regime?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Speaking to a national meeting of the Boy Scouts in his role as the organization's president, former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in reference to gays among the ranks of the group's membership and administration proclaimed that “we must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.”
He insisted that such an adaptation of policy was necessary or the assembled would be required to face “the end of us as a national movement.”
What he is saying is that there are no enduring values or standards.
According to such logic, dependent upon the context the Boy Scouts are no more morally superior to the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany, the Red Pioneers of the Soviet Union, or an ad hoc ISIS training camp in the Syrian desert.
The Scout Oath reads, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and country, and to obey Scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”
The Scout Law is summarized as “A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”
But what happens when these virtues hinder a Darwinian understanding of survival of the fittest?
Should this classic moral code be abandoned should an ethic based on tooth and claw prove more utilitarian and efficacious?
That is, after all, what Robert Gates is advocating.
No wonder the war against terror, in part, floundered under his tenure as the Secretary of Defense.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, May 23, 2015