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

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

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

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

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