Monday, March 30, 2015

Creflo Dollar Demands 65 Million Of Yours For Aeronautical Swag

Televangelist Creflo Dollar needs 65 million of yours so that his ministry can acquire a new luxury jet.

This is because of an engine failure that nearly resulted in tragedy but which was averted through the skill of an experienced pilot.

With a new aircraft, the ministry assures that Dollar will be able to continue the mission of spreading the Gospel around the world.

In an age of instantaneous global communications thanks to high speed Internet, why is this even necessary?

Savages in Third World sewer pipes have certainly mastered social media technologies such as Twitter and Youtube in uploading their own propaganda.

Are we to assume that these are too complex for the likes of Creflo Dollar?

Is Dollar that conceited and full of himself that he believes that the Great Commission cannot be fulfilled without him?

Is he so far about the remaining dregs of humanity that he can't fly Southwest Airlines or Jet Blue like everybody else?

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

O'Reilly Plays Stupid Regarding Obama's Transformation Threats

President Obama speculated that mandatory voting would be transformative in nature.

But in the analysis of this policy under consideration, Bill O'Reilly instead decided to spoof and lampoon the President's most profound reason for making this suggestion.

“Transformative” is a euphemism invoked in support of mob rule and the socialistic redistribution of resources and property.

Instead of warning the American people as to this danger, O'Reilly wasted valuable broadcast time feigning ignorance by inquiring if “transformative” referred to some kind of “robot thing”.

O'Reilly knows full well that the “robot thing” is a Transformer.

The correspondent did, after all, make a cameo playing himself in one of those films.

This verbal obfuscation means that O'Reilly is deliberately deceptive or more profoundly dimwitted than expected.

And regarding which, to borrow a slogan from his own network, we report you decide.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, March 23, 2015

Ministerial Red Lights Necessary To Prevent Ghastly Church Accidents

In the March 13, 2015 edition of the “Sword Of The Lord”, the publication's editor Shelton Smith compared ministry to the act of driving.

In one of the the remarks, he observed that one hand must be on the wheel.

He expanded on that declaration by saying, “At the church house, someone has to be in charge. A leader is a necessity. The pastor is the scripturally appointed, God-anointed person to be the leader.”

Smith further clarified, “Many of our churches are sitting idle and getting nowhere because just before they put the pastor in the driver's seat, they tied his hands behind his back...So let's get real! And let's be scriptural about it! Let's get a driver who knows how to handle the vehicle and let him drive it. Amen!”

Very well then.

Let us be scriptural about the matter in compliance with Shelton Smith's admonition.

Where in the corpus of divine revelation is blind obedience to the pastor commanded?

If anything, it seems that quite the opposite might be called for.

Acts 17:11 reads, “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scripture every day to see if what Paul said was true (NIV).”

Let's continue a bit with the driving analogies.

Despite dealing with her own doctrinal challenges as she navigates reconciling the demands of celebrity and the Christian faith, Carrey Underwood exclaimed “Jesus, take the wheel.”

How is what Shelton Smith is arguing for that much different in kind than the papal infallibility and the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church where those in the pews are expected to keep their mouths shut if they want to be considered acceptable members?

If anything, isn't the pastor more of a tour guide than a driver that is not to be questioned or challenged?

For is not Christ or the revealed Word of God in Scripture the one theoretically driving this bus?

In the age of the child predator, the fit parent reinforces in the mind of their offspring not to get into a vehicle with someone they don't know, don't trust, or have a suspicious feeling about.

In this day where all kinds of abuse (both spiritual and physical) is taking place in a variety of churches across Christianity's vast theological spectrum, contrary to the impression given by the likes of Josh Harris in his book “Stop Dating The Church”, you as an individual created in the image of God are free to get off the bus of a particular congregation any time you want.

A minister that insists upon broad pastoral powers without teaching that these are curtailed within explicitly delineated boundaries has neglected his responsibilities in a manner not that markedly different than an intoxicated motorist as he veers into lanes in which he ought not to travel.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Don't Hide Behind Piety During Totalitarianism's Rise

On Issues Etc, the topic was addressed if the Christian must defend the Charlie Hebbdo cartoons construed as blasphemous .

From the clip highlighted as the sound bite of the week, one gets the impression that articulating a defense of the gunned down editorial office's freedom of expression isn't really all that much of a priority.

After all, the ultimate concern of the church is not so much with things such as innate or constitutional liberties but rather with the proclamation of the Gospel message.

That might be true in regards to those called to the ministry in the strictest sense of that narrow vocation.

However, not everyone within the church is required to emphasize the exact same aspect of the comprehensive Christian worldview.

Given that this program is Lutheran, one would think they might be quicker to remember the wisdom of Martin Niemoller who reflected how, because he remained silent as the acolytes of totalitarianism hauled off a variety of dissidents, that there was no one left to protect him when the Fascist hordes came to take him away.

Christians don't have to applaud religiously offensive artwork.

However, when bloodthirsty savages begin murdering those that they disagree with, the believer needs to realize that it won't be long until these demoniacs gun down worshipers for little more than singing doctrinally distinctive hymns or reciting the classic creeds.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Frosted Flakes Might Not Be That Great But Neither Are They All That Bad

The cover of the 3/2/15 edition of Businessweek depicts Tony the Tiger in a gas mask recoiling in horror at the sight of the frosted flakes he has shilled for decades.

Reworking his classic catchphrase, he declares, “THEY'RE GR-R-ROSS!”

Additional copy on the cover reads, “Carbs, sugar and stubbornness are killing Kellogg.”

How is this dietary staple any more disgusting than these so-called “health foods”?

“Organic” is simply a euphemism for having been grown in digestive excrement.

The same hipsters and neo-beatniks vowing never to feed these breakfast confections to their own spawn certainly had no problem pigging out on these foods in their own childhoods.

It has always been said sausage is a food that you do not want to see being made.

Apparently the same is true now in regards to breakfast cereal in a world where what constitutes nutrition is as much about embracing the proper politics as about keeping a body energized.

A government panel suggested that Americans cut back on the consumption of meat not so much as a way to prevent clogged arteries but rather to prevent global warming.

Interestingly enough, this proclamation was handed down amidst the coldest winter temperatures in years.

If Businessweek insists on being this blatantly honest regarding what we are eating for breakfast, do the editors intend to be as graphically startling as to what transpires in the average abortion clinic or during gay rights parades?

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Christian Filmmaker Befuddled Over The Relationship Between Media & Religion

In an episode of Generations Radio titled “Filmmaker Chastises Christians For Watching Ungodly Films: Film Has Usurped Church”, Christian filmmaker Rich Christiano provided a summary of an upcoming project as well as reflections upon Christianity and the media.

In the synopsis, he name drops that the upcoming film features Harry Anderson.

The cinematographer reminds that Anderson, before his descent into obscurity, starred as the judge on the sitcom “Night Court”.

So if the truly sanctified believer is to refrain from these kinds of wordly entertainments, how is anyone in the listening audience even supposed to know what “Night Court” is?

Admittedly, I saw a few episodes of Night Court in my youth.

From what I remember, the comedy was heavy on innuendo,

I will confess I enjoy doubled-meaninged word play a little too enthusiastically at times.

However, I don't host a podcast insinuating that your daughter is going to end up being a lesbian if she's too infatuated from a literary or dramatic standpoint with the world of “Little House On The Prairie” as Generations Radio suggested some years back.

Are we to take away that it is acceptable to watch “Night Court” but we need to repent if we find “Hunger Games” to be an intriguing dystopian projection of the world to come in a few decades?

For this very same director that bragged about casting a former celebrity from “Night Court” insisted that it is not enough for a movie to be family friendly, wholesome, or make valid moral observations.

Rather, to be acceptable, a movie must deliberately push Christianity onto the viewer.

Christiano went on to lament how Christians don't get excited over Christian movies.

Sorry, but I don't plop down $10 for any movie where the characters do little more than sit around crying about their everyday feelings and common disappointments.

To be theater worthy in my opinion, considerable spectacle is needed such as some kind of mass battle, talking animals, robots, superheroes, space aliens, clashing wizards or spies.

Christiano further observed that someone couldn't remember what their pastor preached about a month ago but could recall details about “The Wizard of Oz” despite having not seen it in years.

Before heaping hellfire and damnation upon those that might respond similarly, a number of things need to be taken into consideration.

Firstly, how old are they now compared to when they first saw “The Wizard of Oz”?

So isn't that more of God's responsibility for how He allows the brain to decay overtime where it is often easier to recall things that happened to minutest detail 30 or 40 years ago but you can't for the life of you remember what you had for dinner last night?

Secondly, perhaps the blame should be placed more upon the pastor for lack of showmanship and presentation rather than upon the average Christian for failing to retain the intricate details.

For I am sure the next time that there are flying monkeys and dancing midgets in church that you are going to remember it.

Which brings the discussion to another very important point.

One goes to the movies precisely to see an out of the ordinary spectacle.

That is not the the case necessarily in regards to a church worship service.

Upon further consideration, what is retained from a sermon might not be all that different from what is retained from a film.

For example, unless one sees especially at a young age a particular film over and over again, does anyone really retain much beyond a memory of the basic plot usually?

As I approach middle age, sometimes I find I can't recall what happened the previous week on some of the dramas that I follow quite closely.

Thus, instead of condemning a congregation or group of random Christians if they can't elaborate the specifics of a single sermon, shouldn't the professional clergy be more pleased and concerned that those under their care recall the main points of the comprehensive Christian saga rather than the obtuse actions of a single Old Testament character with a name that defies pronunciation?

Along the lines of this criticism about the moviegoer longing for innovation and spectacle, Christiano lamented how movies never satisfy and people always want to see the next big blockbuster.

Let's apply that presupposition to other aspects of life one would otherwise consider wholesome, admirable, and desirable.

For example, according to this logic, shouldn't it be enough to go to church once and never have to go again to quench one's spiritual thirst?

If one's marriage is truly based upon love and not upon the titillation of fleshly desires, by Christiano's thinking, would a couple need to enjoy carnal relations more than once throughout the course of their entire marital union?

Media spectacle will never replace sermonic exposition as the primary didactic methodology through which concise doctrinal content is transmitted to the believer.

However, it often seems that certain Evangelical factions aren't that interested in making much use of these supplementary media formats to augment the learning experience.

In regards to the upcoming “AD” miniseries, the hosts of one program after remarking just moments before about the tendency of a number of Christians to stay in their own bubble, didn't really give much of a reason to avoid the production other than that its producer Roma Downey is a Roman Catholic with mystical New Age tendencies.

Wouldn't it have been better to wait and see if there are any factual errors in Downey's narrative rather than condemn the production on the basis of whatever errant peculiarities she might gravitate towards in the personal aspects of her devotional life?

After all, most conservative Evangelicals allow the King James Bible to stand on its own merits without the homosexual and Romanist proclivities of the monarch for which this translation of divine revelation is named allowed to detract from its literary, historical, or theological merits.

Like it or not, believers find themselves in a culture surrounded by media.

It is therefore imperative not only to figure out how the media can be used to disseminate the Christian worldview but to also understand where the methodologies of entertainment and the church can diverge from one another without there having to be a spirit of hostility between the distinct purposes of each of these modes of communication.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, February 13, 2015

Worldview Clashes In Super Bowl Commercials As Riveting As The Actual Game

A variety of assumptions worthy of additional comment were propagated for public dissemination through a number of Super Bowl commercials.

In one anti-bullying spot, a social engineer instructs the one to be mentally reconditioned to run or fight like a girl.

Upon compliance, the unenlightened male is subjected to Pavlovian denunciation (akin to what one would receive in a prisoner of war camp) over how he has insulted his sister.

Rather than an instructive analysis of preconceived notions, the lesson to be learned from the public service announcement is that, irrespective of whether you comply with or ignore orders issued by a women, you are going to be reamed a new one anyway.

For if the ambushed lad had not been told to run like a girl, he would have not likely perpetrated the offending action.

If producers of this broadcast spot are so outraged about thought crimes regarding gender, it would be interesting to hear their perspective regarding the commercial featuring perennial pottymouth Sarah Silverman.

In that one, she says after delivering a baby to the parents, “Sorry, it's a boy.”

Would such blatant denigration of the female gender be permitted in a similar commercial?

Lastly, what about the Scientology advertisement?

In 2011, Fox rejected a Super Bowl commercial that broadcast the message, “John 3:16, what's that mean?” on the grounds that the message contained too much religious doctrine.

Of course, that is unlike the moral-free content of the constant litany of erectile dysfunction commercials where the term “partner” but never “spouse” is constantly verbalized.

It is certainly instructive that programming executives at NBC had no problem, however, with a commercial for Scientology, which is a cult that believes that human beings are reincarnated space aliens and whose sexfiend founder tried to live aboard a cruise ship in order to elude capture for his assorted crimes.

It is easy to assume that the commercials are a momentary distraction allowing the viewer time for a quick trip to the bathroom or to grab another handful of chips.

However, in those brief 30 second spots, there is a contest underway for minds and at times even souls that is as pitched as any struggle on the gridiron

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, February 6, 2015

Did Chuck Swindol Overreact To Elijah's Declaration Of Despair?

A Facebook theologian has commented in agreement with Christian broadcaster Chuck Swindoll that we should never pray for God to take a loved one home to eternity.

It is contended doing so can apparently derail His sovereignty.

Apparently, if we believe that He is sovereign, we should know that He is fully capable of taking us home when He believes that the time has approached.

Isn't that formulation itself an affront to God's sovereignty?

For if God is sovereign in an absolutist sense and the religious thinker not precise in their statements worthy of considerable condemnation as the ultra-Reformed insist, doesn't God KNOW rather than BELIEVE?

In such a theology as being advocated by this Facebook theologian, prayer is not about bringing our requests and concerns to God but rather about formulating statements that we think will make us appear exceedingly pious before certain audiences.

Just how far are we to take the presupposition embodied by this religious postulation under consideration?

If it is wrong to pray for God to mercifully end a life that is suffering, is it just as wrong to pray that God restore life and vitality to a life that He might prefer to draw to a conclusion in this world?

And given that this criticism was posted by someone that is quite vocal in expressing their support of a predestinarian understanding of soteriology so thoroughgoing as to deny any place for human choice and liberty, it must be asked is it a sin to pray for the salvation of a family member that God would rather see slip into Hellfire and damnation?

As justification for this position, the account of Elijah is referenced.

In I Kings 19, while on the run from Ahab and Jezebel, Elijah succumbs to a moment of despair where he declares to the Lord, in verse 4, “I have had enough, Lord. Take my life. I am no better than my ancestors.”

From the Lord's response, apparently unlike Chuck Swindol, the Lord did not find what Elijah asked that much of an outrage.

Instead of chastising Elijah for his despondency, on two occasions the prophet was given a meal so that he might have strength for the journey that was ahead.

Thus, about the only conclusion that can be drawn from Elijah's lamentation that God end his life is that God does not always answer our prayers the way that we would like.

And if He does not, we might find Him lending us assistance in ways that we did not initially expect.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Do The Truly Redeemed Retain Health Insurance?

An episode of a Christian talk show insinuated that, if you retain traditional health insurance or what still passes for it under the Obama regime rather than one of these cost sharing programs harped about during the advertisements, you aren't trusting in God.

Furthermore, it is pointed out, if you retain traditional insurance, you are sending your money to a large corporation rather than assisting fellow believers.

So long as I get the services I contracted for in a satisfactory manner, what do I care if a corporation is large?

The broadcasters claimed that insurance allows for control over people's lives.

Instead, believers would be better off if oversight over medical affairs were transferred to the church.

But what is to prevent the church from exercising increased control over people's lives or from allocating access to healthcare in a preferential manner?

For example, would ecclesiastical medicine be dispersed to the truly ill or to the missionary couple with the saddest sob story with so many children that you can't help bring to mind the old nursery rhyme about the old woman that lived in the shoe?

During the 1990’s, Christian broadcasters would dedicate entire episodes of their programs shilling for a telecommunications provider with the angle that if you remained with these companies you where as complicit with these companies in the part they played in furthering the agendas of pornography and homosexuality.

Despite such grandiose moralizing, the thing was that this service was a pain in the backside to use when you needed it the most.

Do you really want the same thing to happen to you in terms of securing essential medical services?

by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Too Spiritual By Half?

In an exposition of Mark chapter 3, it was observed that Christ's first miracle after the commissioning of the Apostles was the casting out of a demon followed by the healing of Peter's mother-in-law.

The Lutheran seminarian insisted that this symbolically represented the precedence of the spirit over the human tendency to emphasize the body.

The expositor lamented that such a characteristic was the result of the sin nature.

But how is it our fault that the aspect of reality that is the fist to overwhelm our perception on an instinctive level is the physical?

We did not ask to exist as embodied intelligences.

That was part of our original design even in the sinless state.

Unless the demon was cast out first of the person whose body Christ healed and He then had them wait in contemplation for a time before He healed their biological infirmity, isn't this reading too much into the passage?

If one wants to be that attentive to the text, the first miracle in the chapter is actually the bodily healing on the Sabbath of the man with the withered hand.

And what about taking the Four Gospels as a comprehensive totality?

If so, isn't the turning of water into wine at the wedding feast actually thought to be Christ's first miracle?

So do we want to start reading meaning into these as well other than what we are told in the text?

The case could be made that, in terms of a miracle, turning water into wine would appeal more to man's extraneous physical desires than a desire to avoid overwhelming pain and disability.

You make a choice for wine; by design you feel a compulsion to seek the alleviation of pain.

Furthermore, are Lutherans really sure they want to open the door of reading profounder spiritual meaning into the miracles beyond the miracles themselves?

John 2:3 reads, “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine.”

Since Christ ultimately relented to her request, why shouldn't we build detailed Christological speculations like one particular denomination does about how Christ's decisions are especially swayed by her contemplative petitions if we are going to read profound truths into something as commonplace as the order in which Christ performed these miracles?

If the definition of God's omniscience is that the Deity knows everything, wouldn't that also include alternative temporal potentialities?

Therefore, isn't it just as valid to conclude that, if Jesus went first to heal Peter's mother-in-law, Christ night not have gotten around to this particular demoniac before this pitied soul's life ended in some convulsive spasm?

Among Bible scholars and theologians, the Gospel of Mark is noted as a summarative action oriented narrative.

Why would there need to be some esoteric reason as to the order in which the events described transpired other than that this was the order in which events “organically” unfolded around Jesus?

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, February 2, 2015

Christian Publisher Targets Children With Leftist Indoctrination

The Eeerdman's Books For Young Readers spring 2015 catalog contains a book titled “Edgar Wants To Be Alone.”

According to the synopsis, Edgar doesn't like company but notices he is followed by a worm. So he tries to get away from the invertebrate.

The summary reads, “Edgar asks for the other animals on the farm to help him, but eventually he realizes he might have been part of the problem all along.”

One cannot comment definitively without having read the story.

However, the question can be raised why does a children's book need to paint those that might prefer to be alone to as if they are defective or some kind of villain?

Will there be a sequel to the story teaching the worm about the impropriety of pushing his affections upon those that don't want them?

Perhaps the text could be titled “Wiggly Worm & The Restraining Order Process Server”.

Some might think that I am reading too much into a children's book.

Eerrdman's has published another storybook by the very same author titled “The Chicken's Build A Wall”.

That book is advertised with the following copy: “At the farm, the chickens are building a wall, convinced that the hedgehog that wandered in must be trouble. But eventually they discover that he might not be as dangerous as they thought.”

Only the most obtuse liberal (of the variety those publishing this propaganda hope children will be indoctrinated into becoming) will refuse to acknowledge the kinds of agendas such a narrative is promoting.

Firstly, just because the first hedgehog is harmless, isn't it just as much an act of unconscionable prejudice to assume that the next hedgehog is just as affable?

Secondly, if the barnyard or however else you want to categorize their enclosure belongs to the chickens, on what grounds are the chickens obligated to allow the hedgehogs to remain there?

And if the flock does allow the one hedgehog to remain there, are the chickens obligated to allow his entire hovel to take up residence in the chicken coop?

Furthermore, if the hedgehog decides to move into the chicken coop, shouldn't the hedgehog learn to cluck like a chicken or will the chickens be required to grunt like a hedgehog?

It must also be taken into consideration how many hedgehogs can be allowed to move onto the farm before the farm begins to more resemble a hedgehog burrow rather than the original barnyard.

And perhaps most importantly, since it seems that the perimeter can be breached by an animal as innocuous (we are assured) as a hedgehog, shouldn't that serve as a warning for those chickens to get that wall erected before creatures of far more nefarious intent such as foxes, wolves, and weasels make their way into the chicken coop?

At that time, will these carnivores form lobbies and activist networks insisting that, since the hedgehog was allowed to take up residence without protest, that they too be allowed to remain even though their intention is to prey upon the chickens and destroy the avian way of life since these species have been in conflict with one another for nearly two millennia?

To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a story can be just a story.

However, when an author or publisher is explicit in conveying didactic propaganda through the medium of a children's narrative, the discerning should not slink back in fear.

It is because such impressionable young minds are potentially on the line that such concerns must be raised with renewed vigor.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, January 23, 2015

Pastor Overly Critical Of Social Media

A pastor COMPLAINED about Facebook actually being COMPLAINTbook.

However, in a sense, isn't it better to blow off steam online rather than physically slapping the taste out of the mouths of those that they are ticked off about?

As an example, he referenced those that post about getting shoddy service at Starbucks.

But as expensive as those beverages are, shouldn't you be able to vocalize your dissatisfaction somewhere?

But without complaining, wouldn't a pastor be a bit like a firefighter without a hydrant or something akin to a one armed boxer?

Complaining about things is the bread and butter of the ministry.

A pastor remarked that a status update is nothing more than an attempt to be a star for a moment.

So how is that in essence much different than what a pastor does whenever they ascend the pulpit and do anything other than a rote recitation of the Scriptural text?

A pastor admonished that Facebook friendship does not constitute real friendship.

But still isn't it better than nothing at all for those that do not derive much satisfaction through traditional human interaction or happen to be someone most don't really desire to interact with?

Most of the same information can be conveyed through a variety of posts that would otherwise be collected through means that would be categorized as “human intelligence”.

The pastor attempted to solidify his argument by insisting that Facebook friendships are not Biblical friendships.

But frankly, doesn't any relationship where you do not fornicate with, steal from, or murder the involved party pretty much pass Biblical muster?

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The Pope's Advice Regarding Speech Raises More Concerns Than It Answers

As he continues to build a pontificate endeavoring to appeal to nearly everyone on some level, Pope Francis responded to the Charlie Hebbdo massacre in the same spirit.

The Catholic News Service has the Pope on record as saying “It's true, one cannot react violently... But...one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”

Such a standard would seem perfectly reasonable in a culture steeped in Christian values.

However, in a profoundly decayed postmodern era, the Pope's recommendation raises more conundrums than his attempt at sage advice actually resolves.

For example, how is insult or making fun of being defined?

Some of depictions of Muhammad (as well as of Christ) published in the French satire magazine no doubt crossed the boundaries of good taste.

However, in this age obsessed with sensitivity to the point where certain agitators can't seem to shake off the sting of an insult after a few hours, the bar as to what constitutes being offended has been shockingly lowered.

For example, there are those that insist it is improper for adherents of one expression of the Christian faith to criticize what are believed to be the doctrinal shortcomings of another.

At the same time, those uplifting such a spirit of ecumenicity in the next breath let loose with a litany of rants against the brand of Christianity adhered to by the person being badgered into acquiescence and silence.

Likewise, what if the legitimate beliefs of a religion compel that religion to act in ways or profess beliefs that are perceived as offensive or insulting to others?

Muslims aren't too keen on the doctrine of the Trinity; is the Pope willing to renounce this foremost Christian fundamental in order to comply with the spirit of the age?

There are some that believe that it is not the place of church functionaries to bar an individual from the elements of Communion or the Lord's Supper.

So what if someone feels slighted by the Roman Catholic Church assiduously monopolizing what adherents of this understanding of Christianity believer are essential ingredients in the liturgical pursuit of salvation?

Likewise, to what extent is the remark “...one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith” to be adhered to?

To some, an insult to faith can be little more than to insist that your doctrine is right and someone else's is wrong.

It must be remembered that when an American hears these sorts of principles, they are more like rules of etiquette in that they are good ideas to aspire to but not all that much will be done to you if you decide to ignore them.

However, when nearly anyone else around the world says these sorts of things, they mean these notions should be imposed as a matter of statutory law with punishments such as fines or incarceration.

It, therefore, must be asked does the Pope stand with those wanting liberty to prevail throughout the world or does he side with those wanting to plunge civilization into an interminable tyranny?

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, January 16, 2015

Faith On The Final Frontier

“The final frontier” --- since the mid 1960’s these words have characterized Star Trek’s perception of the adventure and the discoveries to be found in the distant reaches of outer space. Yet can this vast interstellar ether really be said to be the final frontier in terms of providing an ultimate foundation or purpose? For despite all its wonder, at its core the cosmos is not that much different than ourselves in that its external composition is simply another manifestation or component of the physical universe.

Thus, no matter how far man might one day voyage beyond the confines of the earth, he will still require belief and value systems through which to process and understand the role of the mysteries he is likely to encounter both within the human mind and those external to himself with which he has had little prior experience. Often the fields of science fiction and future studies are used as tools by which to forecast scientific and technological developments. However, in Religion 2101 A.D., Hiley H. Ward shows these speculative methods can be used to gauge the form religion might take in the distant future.

According to Ward, the astounding breakthroughs of the future will force humanity to rethink the most basic of concepts as these will be stretched beyond traditional understandings in light of extraordinary circumstances and conditions. For example, Ward points out that the very concept of what it means to be human might be altered beyond current recognition. With the advent of artificial organs and the possibility of growing replacements in a laboratory, there could come a day when death might be delayed indefinitely.

Many would no doubt embrace existence as a cyborg (an organism half biological and half mechanical in its physiology) if the interchangeability of parts presented the likelihood of staving off the grim reaper as long as possible. Eventually, man might no longer have to endure the inherent limitations of an organic body as range, perception and locomotion could be enhanced by directly interfacing the brain with a computer controlling an array of exploratory robotic sensors (28). In essence, some could live out their lives as a stationary central processing unit while their secondary android bodies simultaneously explored both the depths of the ocean and the peaks of Mars all at the same time.

Ward predicts that these kinds of innovations will spark profound renovations in man’s religious consciousness. Faced with the overwhelming enormity of the universe, man may feel forced to cope with the daunting fruits of this exploration by downplaying his individuality by fully embracing his place as an insignificant cog in a machine. In biological and sociological sciences, this theory is known as “macro life”, the propensity to view the individual in society as analogous to a single cell in an organism (30).

Such a framework places worth and value instead on the overall group as a whole. Ward foresees this prospect taking more concrete expression in the form of a hypothetical spaceship whose command decisions are arrived at by electronically tapping into the thoughts of the crew and melding these divergent consciousnesses into a single imperative authority greater than the sum of the component perspectives. Even though Religion In 2101 AD was published in 1975, this suggestion foreshadowed its fullest development in science fiction in the form of the collective consciousness of the Borg, the cybernetic aliens from Star Trek that perceive themselves as a single entity and who value the individual members of their society as little more than drones. This concept of all taken as a singular mind bears a striking similarity to pantheism in the realm of religious studies.

The diminution of individuality will not necessarily be heralded as a bad thing by those clamoring for its demise if it can be marketed as an elevation in consciousness as an ontological unification with the universal totality. There are few greater ego boosters, after all, than considering oneself God (or at least as some tiny part of the divine intelligence).

Regarding this perception, Ward provides insightful comments from some of science fiction’s most prominent names. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry says, “Man will come to see himself properly as part of God. God is the sum of everything, all intelligence, all order in the universe...It is not inconceivable that as intelligent beings we are part of and ultimately become God, and ultimately create ourselves (Ward 136).” Harlan Ellison, author of I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream, adds to this perspective: “I guess I worship man. Each has the seed of God in himself (Ward, 136).”

While the religious philosophy of the future will strive to approach the majesty and wonder of outer realities by turning inward, many adherents of the coming cosmic confession will still feel the traditional need of experiencing the divine through a relationship with or by receiving guidance from what they perceive to be an intelligence or symbol objectively transcendent from themselves. Seldom can man pull himself up by his own metaphysical bootstraps.

But whereas the so-called God of old is seen as standing distinct from His creation but actively sustaining it by His loving hand and revealing His message through angels and prophets and later revealing Himself in the form of His Son Jesus Christ, the God of Tomorrowland will employ different couriers and manifest Himself in ways actually less personable. Erich Von Daniken in Chariots Of The Gods hypothesizes that UFO’s and extraterrestrials may serve as an explanation for the supernatural phenomena occurring in ancient times when these harbingers of universal wisdom appeared bearing enlightenment. Von Daniken does not believe in the traditional conception of a transcendent God. Rather he believes in a God composed of the sum of all knowledge in the universe, of which each individual is an autonomous piece of information akin to a bit within a computer to be reunified into the singular totality once the evolution to a state of pure energy has taken place (Ward, 129).

And speaking of computers, eschatologists might take note of the role of these devices in future religious thought as considered in dramatic speculative literature. One cannot dismiss such claims on the part of the likes of Hal Lindsay or Jack Van Impe as outright exaggeration. In David Gerrold’s When Harlie Was One, the Graphic Omniscient Device (G.O.D.) is a supercomputer capable of solving all problems and answering all questions. In the novel The Fall Of Colossus, Colossus is a computer designed to administer functions on earth and is ultimately deified as part of a new religion. Twilight Zone creator Rod Serling observed, “...with increased dependence of technology, we will find ourselves worshipping at the altar of machines (Ward, 133).”

Ward does an impressive job culling through the religious insights found across an impressive array of objective analytical forecasts and fictional literary accounts. Yet it is in the final chapter where Ward synthesizes the observations found in the preceding study into his own narrative vignette that the reader gets the best feel for where these cultural trends might take humanity in the year 2101 AD. It is at this point the reader becomes most engrossed in the issues under consideration.

In the year 2101, humanity’s major religion is the Church of the Celebration of the Holy World Cosmos whose members are called “Celebrators”. Celebrators strive to embrace all the latest fads in religious thought and philosophy such as panantheism, extraterrestrial wisdom, theories of multiple Christs and avatars, and claim to value harmony and expansive tolerance above all else (Ward, 217).

The Celebrators are opposed by religious traditionalists derisively referred to as “Pewsitters” because of their insistence upon utilizing pews and other ancient religious traditions such as monotheism. The reader would initially suspect the Celebrators to be the heroes of the story since they are depicted as the vanguards of progressivism and enlightenment. However, the church to which they belong is as conniving as the most reactionary of ecclesiastical authorities.

Through an agreement worked out with the government, Celebrators are forbidden from traveling, must be free of political ambitions, and have their minds telepathically scanned to prevent disharmonious thoughts. Pewsitters forced to attend Celebrator services face possible disintegration by a laser beam if they disrupt the proceedings. Despite the facade of technology and innovation surrounding the philosophy of religion underlying much of the science fiction addressing these kinds of questions, man cannot seem to escape his most basic requirements and desires --- no matter how much he might try to suppress them --- regarding his need for a personal God. In Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy, God or the “First Speaker” is depicted as a kindly, elderly gentleman who travels the universe helping where he is needed (Ward, 115).

Ward puts his own spin on this concept in his fictional vignette postulating a God dwelling anonymously among humanity as an inconspicuous New York cabbie. Fortunately, the Bible teaches that not only did a loving God come to dwell with men upon the earth in the form of His Son Jesus Christ but that He also provided for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life while He was here through His sacrificial death upon the cross and His resurrection from the dead. If that is not good enough for either the literati of speculative narrative or the mundane realist alike, that is their choice and they must live with the consequences.

When contemplating literary undertakings addressing the philosophy of religion, science fiction with its accompanying connotations of laser guns, rocketships, and creepy aliens does not initially come to mind. However, as Hiley Ward points out in Religion 2101 AD, this particular genre known for stretching the limits of perception can serve as an excellent conceptual mechanism through which to explore intimidating themes of belief we might otherwise be reluctant to approach.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Apostates Attempt To Hijack The Messiah's Arrival To Whitewash Criminal Mayhem

The TransFORM network is a “progressive community formation network.” Right from the get go, anyone with a lick of sense can tell that his outfit isn't playing with a full theological deck. Any doubting it only need to consider what the organization was proposing for the Christmas and Advent seasons.

The email making the suggestion begins, “Advent is a time when sentimentality and spiritualization reigns. But in more ancient forms of Christianity, Advent was more a season of penitence, not unlike Lent. Today, that call for repentance includes a call for justice.”

Interesting enough. Given the ongoing moral decline these days, at times culture could use a dose of a little more guilt and shame. However, individual repentance as understood by the classical Christian or Evangelical is not exactly what the subversives at TransFORM have in mind.

A beloved Yuletide ballad intones “I'm dreaming of a white Christmas.” The types at TransFORM are such outright leftists that, upon hearing such lyrics, they'd probably rend their garments and flagellate themselves while putting on sackcloth and ashes. For you see, despite likely ranking among the palest of the pale as a result of anemia linked no doubt to their vegan diets, they probably don't like being White very much.

The second paragraph of TransFORM's cheery Christmas greeting reads, “This Advent will unfold against the ongoing protests in Ferguson, the results of the ...grand jury report, the ongoing oppression and ending of life by the triple evils of poverty, militarism, and the ceaseless lynching of Christ through black and brown bodies.”

Thus instead of reflecting upon Christ Himself this Christmas season, He is to be replaced by a new messiah. And unlike the original that offered His forgiveness to all who would ask for it irrespective of color, skin pigmentation is about the only thing those speaking on behalf of this racialist godhead care anything about.

Before presenting yourself or someone else as a new Christ, you had best compare yourself to the original and contemplate how what you are offering measures up or falls short.

For example, Jesus was not walking down the middle of the Appian Way when a Roman charioteer simply heralded Him to admonish Him as to the error of His way. Nor did the Messiah reach inside the chariot to pilfer the broadsword and then proceed to bum rush the centurion.

Those attempting to justify the destruction of property as a form of social protest might attempt to respond by comparing such actions to Christ's passionate expulsion of the moneychangers from the Temple. After all, did He not turn over tables and chase the scoundrels with a knotted chord according to John 2:15?

The Temple was the house of God, a representation of where His Spirit dwelt among the people of Israel. As God incarnate in the form of the only Begotten of the Father, the Temple was Christ's to throw out of the structure whomever it was that displeased Him.

In comparison, those committing acts of vandalism and violent sabotage across the nation possess no such legitimate claim to the property which they have so blatantly destroyed. Those were other people's windows smashed and businesses set ablaze.

In the accounts of the Biblical text, Christ condemned those that had turned His house into a house of merchandise. He did not abscond with a bandit's share of loot under the guise of some grandiose pronouncement regarding social justice with some shiny bling and a pair of Air Jordans.

The direct email appeal reads, “...we are inspired by the intersectional justice displayed by Ferguson October and welcome a variety of visions of justice as part of the conversation.”

Worldview thinking postulates that Christian thought as expounded in the pages of the Bible posits a comprehensive understanding that touches upon all facets of existence. If one tugs at one string, all of the others are affected to the point where the entire system could potentially unravel or collapse. This sounds similar to the concept of intersectional justice.

One of the foremost teachings of the Christian faith is that each individual is responsible for his own actions. Outside influences might prod or tempt the person in a particular direction. However, this does not ultimately excuse the actions that an individual might decide to take.

As such, on what Christian grounds does an individual justify destroying the property of someone not even involved in the particular dispute at hand? These beatniks fancying themselves as intellectual revolutionaries will probably drone on about free market economics deploying police power to impose its hegemony and what not upon the backs of the proletariat. But to be considered working class, wouldn't those rampaging in the streets first actually have to work or at least be willing to hoe their own path in life?

Societies are composed ultimately of individuals. It is these that Christ came into the world to shed His blood for, die, and rise from the dead so that each that would call on His name might receive forgiveness for their sins so that they might enjoy eternal life with Him in Heaven.

It is only by addressing the sin in each of our lives --- irrespective of whether we are White, Black, man woman, police officer or civilian --- that there is any hope of ameliorating the problems of a world marred so horribly by the effects of the Fall. Any group that attempts to hijack these festive yet profound celebrations that commemorate this cosmic saga are more than likely in league with the Father of Lies than the Prince of Peace and the Lord of Lords.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, January 5, 2015

A Review Of Exodus: Gods & Kings

It wasn't that “Exodus” God & Kings” was that bad of a movie.

It is more that it could have been better.

The narrative did succeed in creating dramatic interpersonal tension between Moses and Pharaoh by emphasizing the intertwined family relationships of the two characters.

While the film strives to acknowledge in its own way the broad strokes of the Biblical saga, the producers could have done a better job of honoring and adhering to the specifics of the text.

For example, though Aaron is given a supporting role in the story, he tends to look on as Moses haggles with God.

The audience is left to wonder if deity is actually communicating with the prophet or merely a delusion initially induced by a cranial trauma.

Given that the director was Ridley Scott, for all we know the entity manifesting itself in the form of a young boy claiming to be God could have been related to the creatures from the Alien films and alluded to in Prometheus.

With special affects advanced as they are as evidenced in the scenes depicting the assorted plagues, it was a disappointment that there was not a scene depicting the encounter where Aaron's rod consumed the rods of the Egyptian magicians that turned into serpents.

But I guess it was more important to focus on extra-Biblical details like raids on Hittite encampments and characterizing Moses as some kind of guerrilla in the tradition of Che Guevara or Emilio Aguinaldo.

by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Pastor Invokes Independence Day To Undermine Human Liberty & Legal Protections

An Independence Day sermon posted at SermonAudio.com is titled “We Have No Rights”.

The pastor hypothesizes this is because Christ is our master.

The presupposition is correct but the conclusion the pastor deduces from that principle is at best only partially correct if at all.

It must be point out that, because Christ is our master, no man or government can ever be in the ultimate meaning of that concept.

Pulpit expositors must be exceedingly cautious when making claims such as the thesis around which the sermon under consideration is based.

For what if there is some kind of calamity and ISIS-like insurgents establish something akin to Sharia law somewhere in the United States?

If this doctrinal pronouncement is taken to its logical conclusion, when these savages threaten to kill you and rape your wife, as a Christian brainwashed by such urine deficient sermonizing would you just stand there and do nothing with the glazed over smile of an Oral Roberts back up singer plastered across your face?

And what about in a case not so extreme and out of the realm of the possibility in the dark days in which we live?

For if we really have no rights and are to endure everything that is as what Christ deems us worthy of enduring, on what grounds do you defend yourself or family members against a pastor with “wandering hands”?

Or by enunciating this very concern, have I stumbled upon the reason why this particular theory of jurisprudence is shockingly pervasive among certain extremist elements?

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, December 21, 2014

How Authoritative Are A Pastor's Sermons Over You?

Ligonier Ministries has posted a meme disturbed that a majority do not believe their pastor's sermons to be authoritative over their lives.

It is God's Word that is authoritative over your life.

The pastor is simply one voice among many to assist in coming to an understanding of that particular text.

The minister's expositions are only authoritative or binding in those areas where the Scriptures speak definitively.

The pastor should be respected and listened to while in the pulpit if you decide to remain in the congregation where he is preaching in terms of refraining from audible disturbances being enunciated upon hearing something over which you have disagreement.

However, in regards to those issues where they can be a variety of opinion among Christians of similar piety and doctrinal propriety, you are the one that has the final say as to what goes on in your own home and life beyond the church meeting house.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Profounder Debate Flies Under The Radar In Santa Fighter Jet Escort Fiasco

NORAD was criticized last year for its annual Santa-tracking public outreach.

One might think such a concern expressed would be about military resources diverted to what essentially amounts to frivolous entertainment or the result of upon additional reflection realizing that, if the military industrial complex is willing to go along with such a low-grade deception, what other things might the American people be being told less than the truth about.

However, a leftwing front group known as the Campaign For A Commercial Free Childhood denounced the violence and militarism promoted on a NORAD Santa-themed website depicting Old St. Nick's sleigh piloted by eight tiny reindeer being escorted by two fighter jets.

This response is wrong on a number of levels.

First is the name of the racket raising the ruckus.

Why should a Commercial Free Childhood be construed as a positive thing?

In many respects, commercialism and commercializing has been beneficial for all parties involved . Such transactions should not be looked at as necessarily bad.

Through commercialism, the manufacturer is able to produce a product that is needed or (in the case of most Christmas presents) desired in exchange for profit. Parents, in turn, are able to bring a degree of happiness and joy into the lives of their children on Christmas morning.

Granted, there are times that commercial transactions can get out of hand and begin to encroach upon or crowd out other considerations. But does that mean we abolish the free market or capitalist system as a result?

Such a question must be raised especially in light of the alternatives. It is interesting how radical activists aren't quite as eager to denounce the shortcomings of economic systems other than unbridled commerce.

Does an outfit like the Campaign For A Commercial Free Childhood honestly think it could exist in a milieu other than the technologically advanced West?

If the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood prefers a statist command economy where resource allocation is not made by an incomprehensible number of uncoerced choices but rather by a panel of credentialed experts thinking that they know more about the wants and needs of the individuals that make up the masses that such technocrats claim to be acting on behalf of, they need to realize that troublemakers such as themselves questioning the underlying assumptions of the regime in such an outright manner are either not allocated their ration for failing to comply with the objectives of the COMMUNITY or outright eliminated for undermining the authority of the hegemon.

The other alternative to both the advanced commercialist or command economy models would be one based more on simple barter or self sufficiency. To those that have never been forced to live in such a world, that particular way of life might seem idealized or even romantic.

However, such an existence is hardly the picture postcard it is easy to construe it to be from a distance. In such a setting, many of the luxuries and even many of the now easily-obtainable necessities that we enjoy would not be available or so scarce that access to them would be restricted to all but those with a level of wealth and power far beyond that of the ordinary.

Often, the sensitive can be troubled by the emphasis upon the material or physical that seems to characterize societies and civilizations that have advanced to at least an industrial level. It is only within a context where the basic biological needs of a high percentage of the population are met in an expedient or efficient manner that a sufficient number are allowed the luxury to reflect upon whether or not childhood (a period of life which itself wasn't given much consideration before the expansion of the mass society activists in these kinds of groups have made it their mission to denigrate and undermine) has become overly commercialized.

In a simple barter or self-sufficiency economy, the crank employed by the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, in the best circumstances, wouldn't have the time necessary to contemplate abstractions such as militarism. Nearly all of one's attention and working hours would be devoted to cultivating and crafting on one's own the bare necessities of life if these are even available.

More than likely, those drawn to these kinds of non-profit associations that don't really do anything useful (or little of anything beyond pining for a world that would result in widespread destitution and ruination if it existed anywhere other than in the imaginations of the deluded) wouldn't survive for very long.

If the beatniks at the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood are clueless regarding the operation of a viable economy, they are downright dangerous when it comes to defense policy.

The specific complaint of the organization was that the animated sequence of Santa escorted by fighter jets promotes violence and militarism. Mind you, it wasn't like Santa was blown to smithereens for violating North American airspace.

Even more disturbing and unsettling was the extent to which the military went to placate the peaceniks in regards to this outreach effort.

The NORAD spokesman answering the press inquiry went out of his way to point out that the jet fighters depicted in the video weren't only unarmed but that they were Canadian rather than American. Nothing shouts surrender monkey this side of France louder than an unarmed Canadian.

A nation's future is determined in part by the values it instills in its youth regarding certain essential social institutions such as family, work, and the military. In terrorist nations of the Middle East, a Mickey Mouse knock-off indoctrinates toddlers regarding the need to exterminate Jews and Christians while extolling the glories of dieing a mangled death on behalf of the tribal deity. We, on the other hand, become unhinged now should a child merely see the image of an armed airplane.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Combative Ministries Dreaming Of A Disputatious Christmas

An old adage warns that, the more you do for people, the more they you know what all over you.

Actor turned evangelist Kirk Cameron may be becoming personally acquainted with that classic truism.

Merging these divergent vocations, Cameron has produced a documentary examining the Christian origins or at least basis of Christmas.

Surprisingly, some of the harshest criticisms are not coming from the militant secularists or even outright atheists but rather from Cameron's fellow believers.

Cameron is coming under condemnation for including in his film a segment on Santa Claus being inspired by Bishop Nicholas of Myra.

It is from this figure that the legend of St. Nicholas is derived.

But instead of commending Cameron for highlighting little known facts of church history, according to ChristianNews.net, Mike Gerndon of Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries is peeved that Cameron kept his presentation on an ecumenical level and did not go all Jack Chick in exposing the jolly red elf's Roman Catholicism.

The evangelist is quoted as saying in an article posted 11/12/14. “The fact that the Roman Catholic Church made Nicholas a saint should be a red flag to anyone who knows only God can convert sinners to saints by the sovereign work of His Spirit.”

Does it really matter if Nicholas was Roman Catholic or not?

It's not like there were many other churches to pick from in his time if one wanted to express one's religious faith in terms of an orthodox Biblical theology.

However, for Gerndon, even getting his rear this high up on his shoulders is not enough.

His joy this time of year seems to be derived apparently by attempting to ruin every one else's holiday season.

Gerndon continued, “Born again Christians should not be joining Roman Catholics in any spiritual...activity. Paul called on us to remain separate from the unbeliever. When people say 'Merry Christmas'....They are mixing the holy name of Christ with a pagan holiday and a blasphemous representation of Christ on an altar.”

Like many other conceptual formulations, Christmas is imbued with the meaning that we put into it.

By saying “Thursday” or “Saturday”, are fundamental Evangelicals rendering homage to the pagan deities for which those particular days are named?

Scripture urges to call upon the name of the Lord and be saved.

At no time is salvation dependent upon how vehemently one opposes those historic points and personalities where this particular understanding of the faith intersects with another with which it is at times at distinctive variance.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, November 17, 2014

Are Stores Open Thanksgiving Deserving Of Wide Scale Divine Retribution?

Granted, retailers opening on Thanksgiving might not have been the most family-friendly or magnanimous gesture in relation to their employees. However, the response on the part of certain theologians and critics might have gone a bit overboard.

In particular, one such condemnation intoned that from this alteration in commercial operational policy that America is an evil nation worthy of God's judgment.

So because Walmart was either open on Thanksgiving or opened their doors later that evening, nuclear destruction and annihilation or something comparable should rain down across the nation. That is, of course, what is usually meant by the euphemism of “God's judgment”.

To justify this hardline response to opening stores on Thanksgiving beyond simply frowning upon the decision to actively wanting to see lives ruined because of it, Biblical prohibitions regarding the Sabbath are often invoked.

The intentions might possess a nobility in that these sentiments attempt to construe all of reality through the light of God's word and theology derived from it. However, in terms of religious jurisprudence, the position falls a bit short in terms of serving as a platform upon which one can stand to look righteous in calling for blatant ruination and upheaval.

God no doubt delights when His children offer up gratitude for what He has provided and is angered when this appreciation is not evident. However, it does not follow that one cannot express gratitude in a scheduled ritualized manner prior to engaging in orderly commerce later that same day.

One might even claim that God does not really care one way or another to a great degree about the statutory observance of Thanksgiving Day. It may come as a surprise, but there is nothing found within the pages of the canon of Scripture demanding the observance be commemorated a particular Thursday in November.

It must also be asked to what extent do those enforcing Thanksgiving Day under the Mosaic regulations upholding the Sabbath want these punishments and prohibitions enforced? From Exodus 20:9-11, it is learned that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. Jehovah is quite explicit about this.

In our system of chronometric tabulation, Saturday is the Sabbath. What the vast majority of Christians celebrate each Sunday (especially in the morning) is technically not the Sabbath but rather the Lord's Day to commemorate the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

These have been conflated in the minds of many, especially those under the sway of a strict legalism. However, these days are not the same.

So are those demanding compulsory observance of the Sabbath willing to turn themselves over for execution should they find themselves violating the extensive prohibitions regulating the day? For according to Exodus 31:14, that is the stipulated punishment for those failing to observe the Sabbath of the seventh day if such a regulation still applies beyond Deuteronomical Israel.

When those attending compulsory Sabbath observations return home, do they intend to walk rather than operate a vehicle? For that is the extent to which the most observant Orthodox Jews adhere to the exactness of that divine decree. Senator Joseph Lieberman would not even place his own subway fair card into the electronic ticket-taker.

Furthermore, do those deliberating to make such a chore of relaxation intend to only eat leftovers from the night before or unheated prepackaged foods? Because if the true believing Christian must abide by every Biblical decree in excruciating detail for fear of befalling God's indignation, the preparation of consumables is forbidden as well.

Those more interested in ruining everyone else's celebration rather than simply maximizing their own will respond that simply pointing out what is said plainly in certain passages of Scripture downplayed as a result of those advocating them not wanting a greater majority of Christians to grapple with what is being said actually obscures the greater truth of the principle that is being conveyed. Fair enough.

If not for the principles conveyed by God to the Hebrew forefathers of the need for rest and reflection, mankind might have never comprehended the need for a work environment beneficial for all sides of the economic transaction. Before this revelation, for the most part laborers were little more than fodder to be worked until they dropped and quickly discarded.

However, are those insisting up a slavish adherence to the letter of the law really getting that point across when their homiletical formulations cause the listeners to stop and wonder if what really gets the motors of these scriptural exegetes running is rather body counts, the destruction of property, and overall social upheaval. For are not these in some form or another what is meant by the phrase “God's judgment”?

In these times of widespread debauchery and systematic subversion of Western culture, one usually tries to distance oneself from feminist critiques and condemnation of traditional religion. However, if one desires to be an honest observer of the human condition, one is forced to admit that only a man sitting back with his feet propped up would construe Thanksgiving Day as a Sabbath free from labor.

On the classic sitcom “Home Improvement” starring Tim Allen, one of the wittiest lines ever uttered on the series was verbalized when his sidekick Al Borlin quipped that dinner does not make itself. The remark was very similar to an observation made by my own mother.

If a man fails to realize that Thanksgiving is not some magical occasion where one of the most delicious dinners of the year just sprouts fully formed on the table in a manner akin to manna from Heaven, it is most likely that a woman in either the form of a wife, mother or even unwed concubine has spent much of the day laboring away in preparation.

Interestingly, those often complaining the loudest about the growing irreverence with which the day is treated are not absent from the kitchen because they are given over to the higher spiritual pursuits such as prayer, Bible study, or theological contemplation. Instead, they are plopped in an easy chair or on the sofa watching the most typical of entertainments. And I am not talking about the Westminster Kennel Club but rather NFL football.

The conspicuously religious claim that they are opposed to retailers being opened on Thanksgiving because their delicate consciences are disturbed by something so crass and base as mere commerce being transacted on such a solemn occasion. Then why do they have their peepers glued to the boob tube?

It is quite instructive that this contempt for free market exchange is limited to when it is engaged in by the laboring and servile classes. For the last time I checked, it is doubtful that the players, assorted team personnel, or the media conglomerates were putting on a complimentary exhibition game.

No doubt, millions upon millions of dollars exchange hands to orchestrate whatever number of games take place on this particular day. I am not really aware of the exact number. I usually watch the dog show while eating canned pasta just so I can say I had spaghetti for Thanksgiving.

So why are those deciding to go shopping on Thanksgiving more worthy of having death and misery inflicted upon them more so than those instead either attending the football game or even watching the event on television? Confronted so boldly about what it is that they are advocating, those previously enunciating a desire to see God's wrath dispensed over something as commonplace as going to the mall might attempt to linguistically backpedal by claiming that, in their call for judgment, they did not mean to wish misery or death upon those participating in a disputed activity or behavior.

I've pretty much been in or around Christian circles my entire life even if I don't feel welcomed within them entirely. The phrase “God's judgment” rarely has connotation other than that of sorrow and lamentation unless in rare instances where one is referencing the rewards that will be bestowed upon the believer for the good deeds they did honoring to Christ.

Furthermore, in the vast majority of instances, it's not like those participating one way or the other were prevented from enjoying the primary festivities of the Thanksgiving celebration or were not duly compensated in some manner.

For example, though likely not a universal beneficence bestowed on all employees, most laboring to make the sales happen were probably paid some kind of overtime. If not, such personnel were probably not compelled to work beyond their normal allotment of hours for that particular week. As such, they were payed with their scheduled adjusted to be off at another time.

Of even less moral concern ought to be the ones deciding to participate in these sales events on the consumer side of the transaction. For example, many of these sales were designated to commence well after the customary dinner hour.

As such, by that point in the evening, most would have already cogitated upon whatever thoughts of gratitude would have otherwise fired within their respective synapses. Most are in a turkey-induced catatonia, bloated and passing intestinal gas as they glare in a stupor into the television.

Interestingly, if we are raising the opposition to the opening of retailers on Thanksgiving to the level of Biblical law worthy of incurring divine retribution for violating, it must be pointed out that the commencement of these sales technically aren't even occurring on Thanksgiving. In the context of Hebrew culture and religious jurisprudence, the rendering of the day is not determined from midnight to midnight as occurs in the contemporary system. The day is instead rendered from sundown to sundown.

If one wants to be a stickler to Biblical detail, it must be noted that many of these Thanksgiving sales often commence well after dark. Therefore, under Sabbath prohibitions, it is no more immoral to shop from the disputed 8 to 11:59 PM than it would be during the 8 to 11:59 AM period Black Friday morning.

Those wanting to impose the Old Testament as binding civil legislation insist such must be done because God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So if Americans deserve nuclear annihilation, plague, or whatever manifestation of the Apocalypse tickles your particular eschatological fancy for simply going to the store on Thanksgiving, should our nation also be destroyed for altering the method of rendering the days in compliance with the interpretative principle just enunciated?

It can indeed be upsetting to see what one perceives as our culture moving away from Godly foundations. However, enunciating a desire to see lives ruined and destroyed for such is probably a greater violation of explicit Biblical imperatives (such as the careful invocation of judgment) than the modification of a practice that (though commendable and worthy of continuation) is more of an interpretive application of the divine imperatives to begin with.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Church History Sermon Fails To Consider Profound Lesson

In a sermon on the importance of church history, it was argued that the church rather than the biological family was the primary social and psychological relationship in the life of the believer.

That might provide a degree of comfort if one's biological family is urging one to engage in blatantly anti-Biblical behavior.

However, such a grandiose sentiment itself needs to be circumscribed by carefully delineated boundaries.

You will always have a higher priority to those through whom you came into the world.

There is something downright shameful regarding some of these missionaries that will willingly die on behalf of the Pygmies in the African bush but hardly give a second thought to their aging parents here in America.

In classical Christian thought, this is the idea of subsidiarity, that your most profound obligations are to those closest to you.

Secondly, by insisting that a more profound loyalty is owed to one's church family than one's biological family can expose the gullible to a shocking litany of potential abuse on the part of church leaders.

For Jim Jones will live in infamy for conditioning numerous followers to place obedience to church structure over the well being of spouses and children, with the coercion and manipulation he subjected them to in the isolation of the jungle ending with hundreds dead.

It is a shame that a sermon purporting to admonish the need for the Christian to heed the lessons of history failed to take into account one of the twentieth century's most profound.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, November 8, 2014

ABOUT MY NEW BOOK “OBAMA IN THE SKY WITH DEMOCRATS”

By David Lawrence,Ph.D

I blog for Tea Party Nation,  American Thinker, Daily Caller, World Net Daily, Intellectual Conservative and Eagle Rising. 
Lately I have written political poems. Most poets are liberal but I am a conservative poet.  I am trying to tell our side of the story.  I am well-published and have published several books which can be found on Amazon:com.
The Editor-in-Chief of Eagle Rising, Onan J. Coca, loved them so much that he just published my book on Amazon:  OBAMA IN THE SKY WITH DEMOCRATS.
I have excerpted some quotes from my book, “Obama in the Sky with Democrats.”
1
I think of ISIS cutting the heads off of children….
If you can’t hate your enemy you can’t love yourself.
And in a loveless world heads roll like religious bowling balls.
2
The Koran reads like Reservoir Dogs.
It is the religion of death,
A pulp fiction of blood.
Where oh where has Tarantino gone?
Into a celluloid film of Muslim beheadings.

 3
Obama is playing God again,
Picking the dead instead of jellybeans from a Presidential jar.


4
I understand the inconvenience of children, of life,
                                Of the world, of religion.
I do not understand kicking up your heels in a ho down of death,
Dancing to abortion’s music.

 5
Al Gore is crawling across the Arctic on his knees,

Worried that he will fall through the ice,

Crack a bone,

Lose his Nobel Prize to someone with a graduate degree

In climatology.

6
Obama, your icon is Pinocchio.  You can’t get out of the way of your own nose.
7
I wish I had Obama’s good posture. 
He has put too much unnecessary weight on my shoulders.

8
Forgiveness is a fault that leads to redundant terror.

You dance in your self-approbation like a mirror that has fallen in love with itself.


Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Church's Opposition To Holidays Borders On The Cultic

In the equivalent of the self-denunciation that occurs in a variety of cults and Vietcong prisoner of war camps, the congregation of Grace Fellowship Church in Davenport, Iowa celebrate assorted holidays by not only being harangued by their pastor as to what wretched Christians they are if they are caught participating in these festivities but they are also expected to confess to one another just how much they despise these occasions as evidenced by a number of sermons posted at SermonAudio.com..

In an anti-Halloween sermon, the pastor remarked that any parents that have taught their children about Santa Claus are guilty of having lied. He then remarked how delighted he was of his son for having responded to an inquiry that Santa Claus was a wicked elf from the north. So the moral of that story must be that falsehoods are acceptable then they advance the family theological agendas and pecularitiies.

In a sermon condemning Halloween and nearly all other holidays, the pastor suggested that if you enjoy the accouterments of a particular celebration, you can partake of it at another time of year. As an example, he suggested saving your marshmallow peeps until May or June.

But if you are required to live your life in such a controlled and contrived manner, aren't you still living still beholden to that particular holiday? And more importantly, isn't such an individual still seeking the approval of man rather than God?

In an anti-Halloween sermon, the pastor made the argument that Trick Or Treating was wrong because the custom encourages children to dress up as something they are not and to hoard something that “appeals to the flesh” (that being candy). So in the case of this preacher, it would not be a sin for him to dress as a donkey because he's certainly a dumb you know what.

In a sermon on Halloween, it was claimed that the customs of Halloween are designed to take children away from God at an early age. Couldn't something similar be said about legalistic churches and Christian schools pushing children away from God with too many nitpicky and asinine rules?

The pastor devoted a portion of his assorted tirades exposing that Frosty the Snowman was based on a lie. Who over the age of six believes he is real? Even the History Channel hasn't stooped that low yet. By singing about Frosty, you are no more worshiping Frosty than you would be worshiping Calijah The Wooden Indian or worshiping The Gambler by singing those classic songs.

Particularly unsettling and disturbing were the verbal confessions members of the congregation were expected to engage in order to receive approval and affirmation from the pastors and elders.

One gentleman confided how much he had wanted to celebrate Christmas the previous year but instead submitted himself to the eldership of the church. Buddy, the elders might have say as to whether or not the church building is decorated for Christmas. However, they don't have any say whatsoever as to what you do in your home.

In being prodded further by the leadership as to why he no longer celebrated Christmas, this individual responded because the authority in his life had instructed him as such. At no time did he clarify whether or not by that he meant the Holy Spirit or rather merely those holding position at church. If you are going to relent to pastoral control over your life to such an extent, please for the sake of your family, decide for yourself now if you are going to let the pastor sleep with your wife and molest your kids when he comes asking or drink the sour Kool Aid when he orders it.

Another seeking approval during this protocultic ritual admitted in her confession to tossing out a Fischer Price Nativity set because of the adoration her granddaughter exhibited towards the Baby Jesus figurine. The grandmother reflected, and rightfully so to a certain extent, that often we prefer the adorable Baby Jesus that is not a depiction of the Christ of wrath and judgment.

But shouldn't we be cautious about tossing out the messianic baby with the baptismal water? Isn't there a profound and beautiful truth in God in Christ condescending to our level by becoming one of us?

There are indeed both gentle and wrathful sides to God. And in the spirit of the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is a time and purpose to contemplate each of these under Heaven.

Would it be better to deny this obviously spiritually sensitive and receptive child the tender side of Jesus and instead replace Him only with the hard-edged disciplinarian Jesus that the most thoroughgoing Fundamentalists seem to have a preference for? About the only thing the child is going to retain of this entire encounter is that granny tossed out such a beloved toy or decoration. Her family will no doubt sit around twiddling their thumbs years down the road baffled as to why the child is no longer close to God.

A pastor opposed to the celebration of Christmas remarked that no one that has considered the material he has made available regarding the subject and prayed seriously about the topic has told him that despite these that they will continue celebrating the holiday. The statement was made to promulgate the impression that there is little chance for the true believer to come to any conclusion other than that of this particular pastor.

However, there are at least two other alternatives.

Firstly, the individual believer could have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that there is something more profoundly wrong in that particular congregation than the celebrating of Christmas. Concluding such, they retreat hastily from that particular assembly and flee to another house of worship.

Secondly, they might have considered what the pastor had to say, came to a different conclusion, and felt their was no need to inform the pastor of the decision. Especially in light of those matters where the individual is granted some measure of personalized conviction, it is not really the preacher's business what goes on in your home. If this brand of theology and ecclesiology makes such a fuss over Roman Catholic confession, they can't really then invoke some kind of expectation that you are obligated to blab about everything you do.

In these churches where the congregations don't celebrate Christmas, is it out of a desire to please God or have they been so brainwashed by the pastor that they are afraid of ticking him off?

A pastor can repent of celebrating Christmas as much as he likes. However, it is really not his place to homiletically manipulate and coerce you into doing so.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Assistance Applicants Crying Poor Mouth Live High On The Hog

A coworker of an associate is considering having his pregnant wife apply for WIC.

Yet this individual can afford a $30,000 SUV and a $10,000 loan that went primarily to provide his wench with a wedding or engagement ring.

The couple, despite apparently considering nutritional assistance, can apparently afford an Iphone 6 when there was nothing wrong with the cellphone that they already have.

Out of curiosity, I researched the WIC requirements for the state in which the couple resides.

Two of the criteria are interesting.

One allows for a new mom with a child up to six months of age.

Another criteria allows for mothers breastfeeding infants up to a year old.

One might make a case to extend this program to the mom while she is pregnant or is breastfeeding.

However, as soon as the whelp shoots from the birth canal of a mother that does not intend to breastfeed, there is no need to continue this nutritional assistance to her.

For the baby is not directly dependent upon her for nourishment as in the other examples that might justify the entitlement program.

Why not go ahead and provide the father with food for his own consumption as well?

He is, after all, the one that is traditionally still actually going to work while the mom is loafing about on maternity leave.

By Frederick Meekins