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
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Is Kevin Swanson going to maintain that nothing questionable would slip out of his mouth while battling a genocidal Artificial Intelligence on the cusp of perpetrating an extinction level disaster?
The radical homeschooler’s critique of the film went beyond questionable dialog selections on the part of the screenwriters.
Tony Stark in particular was condemned as an individualist and not being much of a team player.
But isn’t that the characteristic of Robert Downey’s interpretation that has made his performance endearing over the course of the interlocking Marvel films and one with which sarcastic loners with a tendency to dance to the beat of their own drum have been able to identify?
As the review progressed, Swanson finally revealed the nature of his ultimate disapproval with the film.
For you see, with the exception of the archer Hawkeye, the protagonists are to be condemned because the are SINGLE (as in unmarried) for a variety of reasons.
For the most part, shouldn’t these characters be applauded for that decision because of the particular vocations in which they find themselves?
Captain America was in suspended animation for over 70 years while the woman he loved, Agent Peggy Carer, aged at a normal rate and if developments in her own TV miniseries are any indication, eventually moved on to marry somebody else as she didn’t even know those many decades that he was even still alive.
So in the eyes of the radical homeschoolers, is Steve Rogers not supposed to work through that profound emotional trauma before wedding someone else that he might not really love?
As to the Incredible Hulk, despite the slight sparks there with Black Widow, perhaps Bruce Banner has character enough to realize that he is better off without a relationship in which the normal stresses of which could set off his condition to the point where he wouldn’t simply snap at his wife in a less than courteous tone but instead level his entire neighborhood.
Though it was amusing to discover that Hawkeye had a secret family that he had concealed from his colleagues in the espionage and costumed adventurer communities and that served as a reminder of what these heroes are fighting for, these are action adventure films (not chick flicks).
While passing romance and flirtations add flavor to the narrative, the primary purpose for these films is to see robots and aliens blown up.
I don’t really care to see Superman flying Lois Lane from store to store looking for new drapes for the Fortress of Solitude.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing said by Swanson in his analysis was that we must be careful not to limit the designation of witchcraft to those claiming to be witches.
Instead, anyone whose power comes from a source other than God is guilty of this grievous offense.
An argument can be made as to the technical accuracy of that claim.
However, it must be remembered that Swanson advocates a political philosophy known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism that calls for the implementation of Biblical law as the nation’s comprehensive social policy and statutory code.
Since that is the case, how ought and to whom should the Biblical injunction of “Suffer not a witch to live” be applied?
For if definable limits are not placed upon such a principle, it could certainly be manipulated as a clever way to justify executing your political and philosophical opponents.
Vigilance is required whether one is dealing with a maniacal artificial intelligence or a podcasting minister that hasn’t fully considered the implications of his theological pronouncements.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
If Independent Baptists insist that their practices are derived from sola scriptura, where is the precedent for the described classroom procedure described in the pages of Holy Writ?
If a church requires such rigmarole, doesn't the church run the risk of alienating those with social anxiety?
For I know I'd go running out of there at the end of the class like Chiroptera fleeing Ghenna.
Some churches require potential members to endure lengthy interrogations and questionnaires that go beyond determining whether or not the catechumen ascents to the basics of the Apostles or Nicene Creeds before being granted that particular status.
If failure to answer in the preapproved manner will result in a denial of membership, what is to prevent the applicant from simply answering in the manner that the leadership expects to hear?
For example, is it really the business of a Christian school administrator whether or not your child has a TV in their room in the privacy of your own home.
Furthermore, who can blame these applicants for fudging their answers when across Christendom the believer is berated and beaten over the head homiletically on a regular basis if one is just an attender and not necessarily a formalized member?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, May 1, 2015
Fundamental to the creed of the contemporary skeptic is the notion that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes. However, that is itself an absolute. And no matter how cool it is to feign the attitude that one exists beyond right and wrong, no one wants to be treated as if right and wrong did not exist.
Of this universal truth, Lewis observes, “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right or Wrong, you will find the man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say 'Jack Robinson' (15).”
Since law exists whether we like it or not, it must have a source beyond us in order to be binding upon us and to avoid degenerating into a matter of mere preference or opinion. Since this universal law represents the codification of a set of principles, it could not have come about as a result of random choice, but rather through some kind of purposeful intelligence. Thus, a second issue confronting the skeptic in “Mere Christianity” is whether the source of this law is personal or impersonal.
The views regarding God can be divided into two basic viewpoints. On the one hand, pantheism believes, in the words of Lewis, that “God animates the universe as you animate your body: that the universe is almost God (30).” Traditional monotheists, on the other hand, believe that God is distinct from creation in a manner similar to “...a man making a picture or composing a tune...A painter is not a picture (30).”
From our understanding of law as a set of principles established for determining right and wrong, the monotheistic conception would be the one most in keeping with the evidence. For if God and the universe were co-terminus as postulated by the pantheists, by definition whatever is, is ought. Only by being distinct from what He has made is God justified in pronouncing judgment upon it.
Since God is the source of perfection and man so marked by imperfection, there must be some way for these seemingly irreconcilable twains to meet. Since man is imperfect, there is nothing he can do of his own merit to bring himself to God's level. Rather, the imperfect can only be made whole and elevated to a higher status on the terms of the perfect.
Since God is the ultimate authority and source of power, it is up to Him to determine the method through which man can be reconciled to God. Of all of the religions of the world, orthodox Biblical Christianity is the only one where that particular belief's conception of salvation is not granted on the basis of the adherent's own merit or accomplishment but rather as a result through the realization that one's own works are as filthy rags and by throwing oneself on the mercy of a loving God willing to extend forgiveness to those embracing what God has done for them rather than on what they have done for Him. In the Christian tradition, this eternal pardon is granted to those believing that Jesus as the only Son of God lived the perfect life that we could not, suffered and died upon the cross for the sins of the world, and rose in bodily form from the dead.
Thus, the most important issue the skeptic is forced to confront is exactly who do they think Jesus is. Impressed with the morals of Jesus but not wanting to admit that they themselves are sinners, most unbelievers think they are broadminded enough by giving Jesus an esteemed status as an ethical teacher from the past with no present claim on their lives.
However, as Lewis points out, a moral person would not say the things about himself that Jesus said about Himself. Lewis writes, “A man who...said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be a lunatic --- on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg --- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice (41).”
Much of the spiritual danger of the contemporary world lies in the numerous distractions available to those preferring to avoid those fundamental questions nagging at the human soul. C.S. Lewis, in “Mere Christianity”, forces the reader to confront these issues in an engaging and forthright manner.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Without a doubt, Bertrand Russell stands as one of the most formidable minds of the modern era. Through his efforts with Alfred North Whitehead in “Principia Mathematica”, Russell further elaborated the relationship between mathematics and deductive logic. Russell's endeavors, however, were not confined to complex philosophical treatises having little influence outside of academic circles. Russell's work spanned the intellectual spectrum, ranging from works on the history of philosophy to international relations and political theory. Russell even produced newspaper articles for mass consumption. But despite his prolific intellectual output, Russell did not apply his mathematician's logic and objectivity to much of his non-scientific thought, especially in the area of religion as embodied by his work “Why I Am Not A Christian”.
Instead of addressing a single topic throughout the entire work, “Why I Am Not A Christian” is a collection of articles and essays addressing Russell's position on religious matters in general and issues regarding Christianity in particular. Proverbs 23:7 says, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so he is.” Many times influential voices speaking in the opinion-molding institutions of academia and media contend that one's views on religion do not necessarily impact other areas of existence such as the political or the sociological. Scripture teaches that this popular opinion is incorrect. However, the Bible is not readily accepted by those arguing for the mentioned opinion. Even though the work argues against the traditional positions of Christianity, the power of “Why I Am Not A Christian” resides in how it links one's views regarding religion with one's beliefs about society and the world despite the author's attempt to argue otherwise.
Russell's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) found their basis in his position that the theistic proofs are not as conclusive as believers make them out to be. When asked what he would say if confronted by the Creator at his death, Russell said he would respond by saying, “God! Why did you make evidence of your existence so insufficient?”
In “Why I Am Not A Christian”, Russell proceeds to critique each of these arguments. None of them escape his scathing scrutiny. Of the argument from the First Cause, Russell remarks that, if everything must have a cause, then God cannot be the uncaused cause by those following in the intellectual lineage of Aquinas. Russell claims that this argument actually results in an endless digression of creators begetting creators much like those mythological cosmologies where the Earth rests atop an elephant resting atop a tortoise etc. etc (7).
From the outset, Russell argues from faulty notions. According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, in a thoroughly naturalistic context something cannot come from nothing. But by its definition, a noncontingent being does not require a cause since its existence is complete in itself (289). Only finite contingent beings require a cause.
The next proofs tackled by Russell are the arguments for the existence of God from the evidence of creation. Russell argues that, in the light of Einsteinian relativity, the Newtonian system of natural law is not as binding upon the universe as originally thought. Therefore, these scientific principles cannot be used to argue for the existence of a rational creator. However, one could turn the tables on Russell and point out that the revelations of Einsteinian physics actually provide a better testimony to the existence of God than even the previous Newtonian model.
According to Russell, natural law is nothing more than statistical averages resulting from the laws of chance (Russell, 8). John Warwick Montgomery in “Faith Founded On Fact” rebuts Russell's position by pointing out that the Einsteinian and quantum paradigms actually allow for miracles while maintaining that an ordered universe exists. In those systems attempting to account for the totality of the physical universe, it is God who keeps the universe from instantaneously dissolving into the chaos of individual atoms flying off into their own paths and who can rearrange the normal operations of reality when doing so suits His greater glory such as turning water into wine and resurrecting the dead (Montgomery, 43).
Besides drawing faulty conclusions regarding the validity of the theistic proofs, Russell errs as to their purpose as well. Russell is correct in pointing out that these arguments do leave room for some doubt. Yet this can be said about any other linguistically synthetic proposition about the world as well.
If one wants to get really nit-picky about the matter, one could doubt whether Bertrand Russell himself even existed since the Analysts were not above doubting the veracity of historical knowledge. As much as it might irritate the so-called “scientific mind”, one cannot exist without exercising some degree and kind of faith.
The theistic proofs can serve as a guide pointing towards faith or as a mechanism to help rationally clarify it. They do not properly serve as a replacement for it. Norman Geisler points out that one ought not to believe in God because of the theistic proofs. Rather, the theistic proofs provide one with a basis to reasonably assert that God exists (Geisler, 269).
Having taken on the first person of the triune Godhead, Russell turns his sites onto the second, the Lord Jesus Christ. To his perverse credit in a perverse sort way, Russell does not hind behind the phony religiosity of the liberal and the modernist which states, “Jesus was a good teacher, but...”
Russell openly wonders whether or not Christ even existed. And even if He did, Russell asserts, Jesus is far from being the greatest among human teachers as asserted by the likes of the Unitarians and the New Age movement. At best, according to Russell's scorecard, Jesus comes in at a distant third behind Socrates and Buddha (16). According to Russell, Christ's greatest flaw was His belief in the reality of Hell and His condemnation of those who would not heed the Messiah's call. Socrates provides a superior moral example since Socrates did not verbally castigate his detractors (Russell, 17).
Russell's disdain for those believing in the reality of Hell exposes his own bias rather than prove his dedication to the ideas of truth that he invokes elsewhere to undermine the claims of religious faith. In appraising the idea of Hell, Russell does not give much consideration to the realm of eternal damnation, instead dismissing the concept as a cruel idea (18). But if Hell is real, is not Christ doing the proper thing in warning how such a terrible fate might be avoided? Employing Russell's line of reasoning, it becomes cruel to chastise someone standing under a tall tree with a piece of sheet metal during a thunderstorm since such an exhortation also warns of the dire consequences likely to result from such foolish behavior.
But while Russell questions the historicity of Jesus Christ, he readily accepts that of Buddha even though Christ is perhaps the best documented figure of ancient history. The first accounts of Buddha appear nearly 500 years after the death of that particular religious figure. Those regarding Jesus appear within the first several decades following the Crucifixion.
Allegedly having removed God from His thrown as sovereign of the universe, Russell proceeds to lay out what he does believe primarily in the chapter titled “What I Believe”. Replacing religion as the tool by which man approaches the world, Russell would have man utilize science to determine meaning, reducing the totality of reality to that of mere physics (50). To Russell, even thought is nothing more than the chemical components and electrical impulses arising from the brain's physical composition.
Yet despite believing the material world to be ultimate, Russell saw no problem with making pronouncements regarding the areas of life transcending the material base such as ethics and social organization. Russell boldly states in italicized print for all to read, “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge (56).” However, elsewhere in the very same chapter, Russell says, “...nature in itself is neutral, neither good nor bad (55).”
If humanity is nothing more than the sum of the physical composition of the species, it is then inappropriate to elaborate a theory of morality. Morality poured into such a naturalistic crucible becomes nothing more than individual personal preferences, which do seem to serve as Russell's source of moral reasoning. According to Russell, traditional morality is based upon cruelty and ignorance. However, according to John Frame in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God”, to invoke the values of love and knowledge (even when done so to undermine traditional conceptions of virtue) is to inadvertently defend the divinely established order of creation traditional moral values rests upon in the first place since such values are only desirable if a divinely created hierarchy exists (93-102).
Ultimately, one cannot craft a system of ethics solely based on science legitimately defined as science. At best, science can only assess and clarify the situations to which moral principles must be applied. To say that science is the source of moral values is to argue for a scientism or a naturalism as loaded with as many conceptual presuppositions as any theistic creed.
One can base one's ethical beliefs on the record of Scripture, which II Timothy 3:16 says is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for corrections, and for instruction in righteousness. Or, one can operate under man's own unaided reason, which is finite, corruptible, and known to change every five to ten years subject to FDA approval. History reveals which has the far better track record.
Unlike many Christians who do not take their worldview outside the church sanctuary or seminary classroom, Bertrand Russell was not one content to keep his philosophy and ideology confined to the level of an academic exercise. In terms of political activism, this was manifested by his vocal opposition to the nuclear diplomacy engaged in by both the United States and the Soviet Union during the tensest days of the Cold War.
However, the application of Russell's worldview did not always lead him to pursue admirable yet perhaps naive goals such as world peace. In fact, Presbyterian minister D.James Kennedy suggests in “Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul” that Russell may have formulated his philosophical position regarding religious matters as a justification for his erotic proclivities, the lanky intellectual having actually had numerous adulterous relationships including philanderous escapades with the daughters of friends and colleagues (173). In fact, Russell social views derived from his foundational assumptions sparked considerable controversy. After all, it was not his “Principia Mathematica” that cost him a professorship at the City College of New York but rather his views regarding marriage and personal morality.
Seeing man soley as the product of natural processes and merely as a highly evolved animal, Russell's views regarding human intimacy and procreation reflect this sentiment. According to Russell, much of traditional morality --- especially that dealing with sexual ethics --- is based upon superstition. In fact, Russell believes that it would be beneficial for society and family life if the traditional understanding of monogamous, life-long, God-ordained marriage was openly violated. In these matters, Russell sounds much like a contemporary Planned Parenthood operative or public school sex educator. For example, Russell argues for no-fault divorce, unhampered sexual promiscuity provided children do not result from such illicit unions, and for temporary trial marriages not unlike the phenomena of cohabitation (Russell, 168-178).
Despite his attempts to expand human freedom and happiness in regards to these matters, Russell's proposals are in reality prescriptions for heartache and disaster. The segment of society sustaining the highest number of casualties in the sexual revolution are the young that Russell had hoped to liberate. According to syndicated columnist Cal Thomas in “The Death Of Ethics In America”, by the age of twenty-one 81% of unmarried males and 60% of unmarried females have had sexual intercourse. However, such carnal stimulation is not necessarily the fulfilling personal growth opportunity Russell claimed it would be.
Venereal diseases rank as the number one form of communicable illness in the United States. And the varieties of this pestilence prevalent today do not always react as well to penicillin as those ravaging the morally deviant of Professor Russell's day (Thomas, 92). Those engaging in Dr. Russell's trial marriages --- what use to be referred to as living in sin --- fare little better. Those participating in such arrangements on average go on to experience higher levels of marital discord and incidents of divorce.
God did not establish the regulations regarding human intimacy in order to rain on everybody's parade. These rules were promulgated in order to bring about the maximum degree of individual well-being and personal happiness. Matthew 19:5 says, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. Hebrews 13:4 adds, “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”
To his credit and the shame of the church, Russell does note how women have over the course of history often endured oppressive marriages many times under the sanction and justification of misunderstood interpretations regarding marital submission. However, any cruelty justified under this command is a misinterpretation of the passage's true intent. In Ephesians 5:25, just two verses away from the famous Scripture misused as an excuse for all manner of masculine cruelty, the Bible clearly reads, “Husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church.” This love is to be a sacrificial and gentle love; not the decree of a tyrant even though the husband is the king of the house. Studies indicate that, in reality, marriage is far safer for women than the live-in arrangements advocated by Russell under the euphemism of temporary marriage.
Having dismissed the traditional family and religion (both organized and otherwise) as impediments to humanity's progress, Russell puts his hope for the betterment of mankind in the state. Rather than punish individuals committing sins so heinous that they infringe upon the well-being of society, the state is to manipulate human behavior in order to bring about desired outcomes beneficial to the greater community. In fact, according to Russell, sin defined as an action committed by an individual in defiance of the universal moral order as established by an omnipotent creator does not exist. Sin is merely that which is disliked by those controlling education (159).
Even those committing the most heinous deeds are not beyond the pale of psychological reprogramming or pity much like that lavished upon a wayward dog that cannot help scratching up the furniture. To bring about his scientific utopia, the state would be granted expansive powers in even those most private aspects of existence. For example, Russell's state would go so far as to decree that children must be confiscated from their parents and raised by trained statist experts (Russell, 163).
Russell also suffers from the same paradox afflicting Marx and other socialists in that Russell desires to shrink the power of the state while at the same time dramatically increasing it. While wanting to put economic power into the hands of workers through a system of guilds and syndicates, Russell also sought to establish a world state having a monopoly on the use of force as well as establish guaranteed incomes and the human breeding restrictions mentioned earlier.
The issues raised by Russell's political opinions still possess relevance today with much of contemporary civic discourse an ongoing debate regarding the very kinds of policies advocated by Russell and his leftwing associates. F.A. Hayek noted in “The Road To Serfdom” that, while liberals might have naive but benevolent intentions behind their social engineering proposals, these ultimately require more bloodthirsty totalitarians or others of a similar vain lacking concern for innate human freedoms and constitutional liberties. Even Russell admits that much of human liberty is the result of the interplay between church and state (185). What then would result should the influence be nullified as Russell proposes?
Reflecting upon Russell's proposal of state-run childcare, it is highly doubtful whether or not such a program could be implemented without a great deal of bloodshed or a massive multi-generational conspiracy such as Hillary Clinton's it takes a village mentality and the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of The Child. Programs and policy outlooks such as these seek to alter the fundamental nature of the family primarily through bureaucratic stealth and covert legislative manipulation. Realizing that the proclivities towards marriage and family ran so deeply in the human psyche, even the Soviets had to back off their plank to so openly undermine the oldest of human institutions as part of their diabolical agenda.
And while the wars plaguing mankind are deplorable, the geopolitical landscape allowing them to arise is still preferable to the global tyranny and persecution that would result from a planetary regime that would impose its iron will on any portion of the world refusing to heed its edicts and decrees. At least under the current world order, a small percentage of humanity is able to enjoy some measure of freedom until the Lord's Second Coming.
Contrary to what even the National Rifle Association claims, America's Founding Fathers did not draft the Second Amendment to protect skeet shooting and squirrel hunting. Instead, this constitutional provision established a sense of liberty by creating tension between freemen and the operatives of the state by implying violence could result should government authorities over step the confines of their legitimate powers. Something similar is true with a system of nation-states competing with one another, none of which can tyrannize all of mankind at one time.
By reading “Why I Am Not A Christian”, one is reminded that the current culture war besieging America did not begin with either the inaugurations of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. It is in fact decades and even centuries old. While setting out an agenda and its ideological justification, Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” also provides a glimpse into the cultural disputes of another era.
The final chapter of the book consists of an appendix detailing the court case that ultimately prevented Russell from obtaining a professorship of mathematical and scientific philosophy. Whether or not Russell's critics should have acted so vehemently is open to debate as (to utilize a phrase just employed) there is some virtue to settling things through “open debate” with each side detailing their merits and revealing the weaknesses in the arguments of their opponents. However, history has shown that the concerns raised by those opposed to Russell's appointment were based in legitimate fears.
Though Russell cannot bear sole guilt as much of that must also go to his colleagues sharing in his worldview of loose sex and paternalistic government, this philosophy has gained such prominence in social institutions such as education, entertainment, and even religion. Regard for the family and human life has deteriorated to such a degree that is has become regular to hear in news reports of former mailmen mowing down with machine guns their fellow employees (the act itself now referred to as “going postal”) or of prom queens killing their newborns between dances. The world has never been perfect since the expulsion from Eden, but seldom in history has there been times where such outright evil is openly justified by those in authority such as certain psychologists, elected officials, and media personalities.
Bertrand Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” will not stand as a classic regarding what is explicitly written upon the pages. For the highest rational principle appealed to is that the world should enshrine the thoughts and preferences of Bertrand Russell simply because they are the thoughts and utterances of Bertrand Russell. However, the message it propounds between the lines of each man serving as his own god ranks among the central apologetic challenges of this or any other era. The clear style and detectable fallacies found within the pages of Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” will prepare Christians to take on more sophisticated versions of these arguments wherever they might appear.
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, April 12, 2015
I enjoyed reading The Da Vinci Code Revisited by Christopher H.K. Persaud. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown is advertised to be a novel, but comes across as based on truth. Great danger is at hand for Christians and unbelievers who may be taken in by its heresies. Drawing in influences like the radical feminist movement, and the surge in interest in paranormal, witchcraft, and supernatural thrillers, Brown spins a tale which is nothing if not controversial.
As Persaud writes, there is much false information in Brown’s book when compared to recorded and available historical accounts. There is much discrepancy between what is said to be the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts and what anyone can read in the news. Most shocking is the persistent rumor that the holy grail is actually Mary Magdalene as a vessel for the child of Jesus Christ since, as it states in Brown’s novel, they were married and continued the bloodline which survives to the current day. A number of these errors grew from some assuming the Nag Hammadi books to be equivalent to the canonized Christian Bible, and that the church had purposely left them out because they were at odds with its agenda. But as Persaud shows, these supposed “lost gospels” were written much later than the eyewitness period and do not even bear the names of the actual writers or agree with the canonized books. It was common in those days to take the name of a famous person, say the apostle Thomas, and apply his name to your book. People then gave it more credence and, ultimately, could drive people away from the church since it was not in agreement or support of the true gospel.
The first, larger section of The Da Vinci Code Revisited deals with the errors in the novel, and the second section deals with who Christ really is. It provides valuable instruction and many prophecies in support of the bodily resurrection of Christ which, of course, were later fulfilled. A chapter is devoted to a description of the true Christian and his relationship with Christ. Attributes include abhorrence of evil, an attitude of love, and continual prayer. This is not an easy or quick read, but contains all you need to debunk the popular but heretical book, The Da Vinci Code. Revisit it today and see the proof for yourself. 5 stars.
Reprinted from https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-da-vinci-code-revisited
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
The minister insisted that it is not possible for someone to depart this world before one has completed one's work for God.
Therefore, there really isn't any reason to be concerned about how one will die.
Perhaps the pastor is correct.
You won't depart this world before you are supposed to.
However, it does not follow that the reason you are scheduled for an early departure is not the result of your own stupidity or actions.
When the pastor left church, did he look both ways before turning into traffic?
To employ the kind of logic applied in the homily, wouldn't such a vehicular procedure denote a lack of faith?
If we weren't meant to give much consideration as to the ways in which we leave this world, perhaps God should not have allowed most of them to be so painful.
A pastor confessed to the congregation that he is going to donate his body to science after he dies.
Is the point to see at the Resurrection or the Rapture if any donated organs come flying out of any reprobates that they might have been reassigned to as they are remanded during the process of sanctified glorification to the individual originally holding title?
Furthermore, doesn't this pulpit revelation negate any potential criticisms of cremation this particular Biblical expositor might enunciate in the future?
One can't really berate a congregation or a perplexed individual making a sincere inquiry about how throughout Scriptural and Church History the precedent is for the believer to be buried when one does not intend to be buried oneself.
Throughout my own studies of Christianity, I do not recall any passages where it is detailed that the Apostles, Disciples, or foremost among the Saints willingly surrendered up their remains for the purposes of dissection or experimentation.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, April 3, 2015
At a prayer breakfast in Florida, the backwoodsman took direct aim at the ethical bankruptcy of moral relativism.
In the example, Robertson postulated an atheist family where not only are the daughters raped, the wife decapitated, and the father threatened with bodily mutilation but where the Nietzschean assailants revel philosophically in their debauchery in light of the possibility that there is no transcendent standard by which these actions could be categorized as wrong.
Media elites such as those at the Huffington Post are insisting that Robertson's remarks are part of a bizarre and disturbing fantasy.
However, the elaborated scenario is not that markedly different than what is taking place across vast swathes of Islamist controlled territory.
And if all there is is what transpires in the realm of physical matter, on what grounds does civilization stand against these kinds of atrocities?
By the moral vision and worldview of ISIS, it is perfectly acceptable to not only brutally eliminate the infidel but to enjoy carnally defiling the women of the targeted population while engaged in such genocide.
The atheist views human kind as little more than an animal.
In nature, all that matters is continued survival, the propagation of your particular genetic line, and your own pleasure.
It is not unheard of for members of a particular species to inflict all manner of what would be categorized as violence by polite society upon their own kind in pursuit of these particular goals.
Others will insist that, even if Phil Robertson is correct in his observations, he needs to be sensitive that his verbal formulations might unsettle a number of those in the listening or viewing audience, particularly liberal females.
Interesting how these very same marms that don't want Phil Robertson heinously describing heinous acts certainly didn't mind plopping down their money at the bookstore or cinema for “Fifty Shades Of Grey”.
Others certainly don't mind overlooking the violence utilized as a literary device by Stephen King, especially if as part of a narrative for the purposes of making traditional religion look bad.
The cultural and moral relativism the Duck Commander warned about in his prayer breakfast homily is a nefarious and manipulative thing.
Under it's rubric, we are obligated to not only refrain from criticizing but must also enthusiastically applaud balladeers from the ghetto celebrating all manner of crime and debauchery.
Educated effetes in metropolises such as New York and Los Angeles might not be accustomed to the plainspokeness of rural elocutes.
However, by the same standard such elites impose under threat of ruination for those failing to abide by it, if they are not members of Phil Robertson's culture and demographic, who are they to impose their values upon despised White Christian Southerners?
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, March 30, 2015
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
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
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
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
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
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