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

Sunday, October 19, 2014

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

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

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

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

Regarding the concern Christians often express regarding death.

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, October 17, 2014

Could The President's UN Remarks Undermine Religious Liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends upon what the President means by that.

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Ebola: Sitting Ducks

By Ronald R. Cherry, M.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

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

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

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

Crismier interjected that such a practice is not Biblical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

Religious Leftists Agitate Politically

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

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

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

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

by Frederick Meekins

Saturday, October 4, 2014

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

By Robert Pickup, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, October 3, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Pastor Apparently Selective In What Pagan Practices He Condemns

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

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

Pastor Cooley concurred with an “Amen.”

But who is it that created cats?

Surely it was not Satan.

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

Cats are not inherently evil.

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

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

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

So does this include Fundamentalist Baptist Churches?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, September 28, 2014

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

By Robert Pickup, Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Care is meant for Seniors

By David Lawrence

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