Theoanthrocide: The Death Of God & Man

Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Without a doubt, the twentieth century ranks among the deadliest in all of human history and it seems the twenty-first will likely continue this appalling legacy. This era will also be remembered as a period of intense philosophical upheaval where the pillars of culture and belief were shaken and in many cases even shattered. A number of sophisticated liberals will contend that one cannot establish a link between these sociological developments because innocents have been slain in societies assenting to Judeo-Christian assumptions and not every unbeliever has been an ax-wielding serial killer. Yet it cannot be denied that in nations where the God of the Bible comes to play a role of decreasing significance, the value placed upon human life soon follows such a downhill plunge.

Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.

Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.

The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.

In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.

Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”

It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.

Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.

As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.

Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.

Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.

As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.

Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.

And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”

Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?

With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.

To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .

While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.

In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.

Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).

James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.

By Frederick Meekins

Baptist Church Mocks The Pretribulational Rapture

In a SermonAudio podcast, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in Fayettville, North Carolina mocked those holding to a pretribulational view of the Rapture. 

It was snidely remarked that most American Christians cannot handle the idea of enduring systematic global persecution. 

Maybe so. 

But unless this church offers survivalist training that includes the use of firearms and improvised explosive devices, aren't these pastors suffering profound cognitive dissonance as to what they profess to be coming? 

Even worse, wouldn't they be guilty of an appalling degree of pastoral negligence in failing to prepare those subjected to their spiritual teaching? 

Criticisms such as those enunciated by the pastoral staff are also thinly veiled insults that Americans have things too comfortable. 

 

But what about this particular congregation? 

For when the armies and operatives of the Anti-Christ besiege the nation, won't this church's sprawling entertainment center with its coffee bar and such make a tempting target? 

For this church is so rich that, despite going out of its way to inform the world how much the pastoral staff despises the American flag, there isn't simply a single flagpole on their property but at least five in front of the entrance to this sprawling complex in its SermonAudio profile photo. 

By Frederick Meekins

Let Hungerstrikers Starve

Ecclesiastical rabblerouser Jim Wallis went on a fast in protest over cuts to social programs in the Congressional budget.

Too bad he didn't starve to death.

That's so harsh, leftists will snap.

It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.

No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.

Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.

However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.

According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?

Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.

In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”

In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.

Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.

By Frederick Meekins

Book Review of Blessings, Miracles and Supernatural Experiences: A Biblical Perspective, A Christian's Story

Reviewed by Mary DeKok Blowers for Readers' Favorite

Blessings, Miracles & Supernatural Experiences is a fascinating, in-depth look at miracles from God, and more specifically what it means to have God on your side and in your life. Many examples are given of dangerous situations Christopher H.K. Persaud encountered growing up and living in British Guiana (now known as Guyana), best known as the site of the Jim Jones People’s Temple massacre. It was a Third World rural country and so hospitals were minimal and doctors were scarce. Therefore, when an accident or severe illness took place, it often was life threatening. The faith of Persaud and his family prevented many a tragedy. Examples include a serious motor vehicle accident which Persaud was involved in, a missing child, almost catastrophic episodes of seizures, and other medical issues. The most interesting to me is the instances of demonic possession of acquaintances of Persaud and actual sightings of ghosts or other entities. 

In all cases Persaud makes it very clear. Only by calling on the name of Jesus can we escape the worst that the spirit world has to throw at us. He has done a thorough job with Blessings, Miracles & Supernatural Experiences and provides many references of Scripture from the Bible, in addition to well-known Bible scholars and evangelists, to back up his statements and stories. This book would be a good addition to the libraries of Christians, particularly if they are in the mission field, as people accomplishing great things for the Christian kingdom are often attacked by the demonic world. Blessings, Miracles & Supernatural Experiences will let readers know what can happen and how to pray against attacks.

Book Review of Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science

Reviewed by Romuald Dzemo for Readers' Favorite

Names such as Darwin and Einstein will immediately be associated with a heightened mental acuity and scientific authority until one reads Christopher H.K. Persaud’s Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science, a compelling and insightful book that systematically unveils loopholes in the theory of evolution. Drawing from the history of science and the authority of the Bible, the author makes a critical analysis of the long-standing theory of evolution, leading readers to discover to their utter surprise the many unanswered questions about the origin of life and the world as a whole.

In Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science, Christopher H.K. Persaud comes across as a powerful authority in the fields of Bible prophecy, creationism, and the origins of life and the universe. At a time when many theories creep up and when science and technology appear to be the primary points of reference in the quest for truth, this book will be the lambent light to those whose minds are still steeped in darkness and confusion, asking questions about the origin and end of life.

This is a book that will fill the many gaps left by science, one that will help anyone seeking for answers to come to grips with the mystery of life. Persaud has masterfully demonstrated that beyond the tiniest particle, beyond the many scientific theories, beyond myth and religion, there will always be a point of mystery, a question mark that points to the venerable face of the Creator. Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science is an engaging, fact-filled, and easy-to-read treatise that is highly relevant to this time and age, a most-needed companion to theologians, scientists, historians, and every seeker of truth.

World Invokes Charleston Massacre To Denigrate The Bill Of Rights

An Associated Press article datelined Beijing described how the world fell into a state of shocked lamentation over the gun violence and racism believed to plague the Untied States in light of the horrific Charleston Church Massacre.

A number of the bewildered questioned how a liberty such as the right to bear arms as enshrined by the Second Amendment could be allowed in the U.S. Constitution. Precisely to serve as a protection and bulwark against the systematic execution of dissidents as has transpired in the People's Republic of China throughout that regime's history.

The Mexican newspaper La Jornada was quoted as saying that the United States has become a “structurally violent state where force is frequently used domestically and internationally to resolve differences.” Mind you, Mexico is a Latin American country where it is not uncommon for narcoterrorists to role decapitated heads out onto disco dance floors in order to intimidate their opponents.

Law enforcement in that corrupt land are little better. Often, there, so-called public safety officers sexually brutalize immigrants from other nations while the leadership of this neighbor to our south lectures us as to why we are to lavish upon the riffraff fleeing that failed state with the proverbial three hots and a cot while they await their single family split-level which they will proceed to stuff to the rafters with half the population of their native village.

And speaking of severed heads, dead beats from the Islamic world also proceeded to weigh in on the Charleston Church shooting as if violence never breaks out in regions where the majority of the population embraces that particular errant religion.

One Indonesian intellectual bemoaned that the tragedy shocked many. But more so than the decapitation and ghastly execution videos perfected by Al Qada and now the organization's ISIS spin off as a propaganda technique?

The article went on to say, “In Britain, the attack reinforced the view that America has too many guns and too many racists” and “the obscene proliferation of guns only magnifies tragedies.”

For you see, the residents of Britain tend to be a bit old fashioned when they want to kill someone for harboring beliefs with which they disagree. They just grab personnel from a nearby military base and knife them along the side of the road as they proceed to videotape a pronouncement drenched in their victim's blood. This must be considered across the pond the epitome of artisinal craftsmanship and civility.

Of the shootings, an interviewed Japanese patent attorney reflected, “Racially motivated killings are simply something the Japanese as a people cannot understand.” As an ethnicity inclined towards economics and efficiency, one supposes so. After all, why outrightly murder someone when they can make perfectly acceptable sex slaves first, a fate inflicted upon numerous Koreans forced to serve as “comfort women”.

Critics will respond that that atrocity was decades ago. Indeed it was. Just as were the shortcomings that assorted minority front groups and agitators continue to harp upon no matter how many set asiides and entitlement programs are lavished upon them.

Of the shooting, a Philippine human rights activist said, “That would be no different from a suicide bomber. For a jihadist says, 'I will be with Allah if I do that.' The other says, 'I am proving white supremacy here'.”

That comparison depends upon how you look at it.

The comparison between the jihadist and mass murderer Dylan Roof is accurate from the standpoint of each of these terrorists having embraced false belief systems inspiring each adherent to perpetrate the vilest of acts violating God's eternal absolutes in the pursuit of a Satanic objective. However, there are also differences that the astute observer of this kind of phenomena must be diligent to point out.

Across America, even those willing to take a stand on behalf of the Confederate flag (despite the almost dictatorial opposition galvanized against this symbol of Southern heritage) are repulsed and sickened by the actions of human pus wad Dylan Roof. If anything, these “rednecks” and “hayseeds” are among the few trodding this earth consistent in their call to apply the death penalty against anyone that takes an innocent human life.

However, things are markedly different in the Muslim world. There, on 9/11, exuberant Palestinians took to the streets in celebration. The way children were given candy to commemorate the event brings to mind the prophecy in the Book of Revelation when gifts will be exchanged to celebrate the Anti-Christ executing the Two Witnesses whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem until they are risen from the dead for all the world to see.

To his credit, one Indonesian intellectual said, “Terrorism and radicalism can appear in every strata of society under various guises and in the name of ethnicity, religion and race.”

Those pulling the trigger or lighting the fuse to harm the body and stoke the initial fear are obviously the most guilty in regards to this profound variety of crime. However, the greater injury inflicted might instead be by those attempting to capitalize on these tragedies to manipulate those freedoms much easier to surrender than they will be to back once the immediate danger has passed.

By Frederick Meekins

Is Peewee League Part Of The Darwinian Struggle?

NFL linebacker James Harrison has confiscated his sons' peewee football league participation trophies.

He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.

In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.

But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?

After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?

As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.

According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.

But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?

So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?

James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.

However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.

Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.

However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.

By Frederick Meekins

Should Christians Avoid Apostate Literature In All Instances?

In discussing how Christians grow over time, an Evangelical broadcaster remarked that in going through some old books he came across a couple of titles by Tony Campolo he had read about fifteen years ago.

The broadcaster confessed that, given what he knows of Campolo and the Word of God today, he would probably no longer read anything by Campolo.

Most Christians grounded in the Word of God and sound theology realize that Campolo is a borderline apostate if he hasn't already crossed over the line altogether.

If someone wants to avoid Campolo's works, so be it.

That's one's right in a free society.

However, such a proclamation in such a manner as to create the impression that no one ought to read these kinds of works under any circumstances if they want to retain good standing as a member of the broader conservative Evangelical community goes a bit overboard.

Regarding religious leftists such as Tony Campolo, should one decide to read works by such an author, the discerning must remain cautious to subtle error that says as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.

In other words, sometimes you have got to read between the lines.

But unless we ourselves conduct our own research or, perhaps more importantly are encouraged ourselves to do so, how can we be sure that those stymieing individual reflection and curiosity aren't simply out to control us for their own assorted ends?

The call to be like the Bereans requires nothing short of such sanctified suspicion on our own parts.

By Frederick Meekins

Exaltation Of Southern Baptist Functionaries Grows Cultic

David Platt has been elected as the head of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board.

And with the level of blind devotion called for on the part of a number of prominent Southern Baptist personalities, things are not going to end well.

From a number of statements made by former Southern Baptist Convention President and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, it is doubtful most Roman Catholics follow the Pope as uncritically.

For example, Patterson issued an ultimatum of ten demands that Southern Baptists are expected to abide by in relation to David Platt.

For example, obligation number four reads, “Recognition that there is not a more important man in the world than the President of the International Missions Board because of his potential to touch so many lives...for God.”

In that position, Platt is essentially an administrator and bureaucrat.

Should the President of the United States be praised for the brave acts of the American soldier?

Then why praise Platt over the toils of the frontline missionary?

Another demand made by Patterson in his ultimatum is even more disturbing.

Demand number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Dr. Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and is within our power.”

Ladies and gentleman, feel free to listen to anything David Platt has to say.

However, in the final analysis, make up your own mind as to what you will do with what the Lord has given you.

You answer to the Lord Jesus Christ, not David Platt, the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other organized church body.

For while David Platt is essentially teaching that anyone responding with anything less than a willingness to serve as canon fodder for God (as He no doubt whispers in Pastor Platt's ear) is a urine deprived excuse of a Christian, if Brother Patterson had had his way, the seminary Patterson heads would have opened its doors to eventual Islamist takeover.

Some will snap that these kinds of observations are inaccurate or over exaggerated.

However, nearly every cult tragedy or church abuse scandal began with these kinds of claims and admonitions suggesting how some particular leader was so far beyond the mere pewfillers in terms of spirituality who were obligated to bow at the feet of the exalted guru.

My advice to you is that it might be best to avoid Kool Aid offered either by David Platt or his more enthusiastic supporters.

By Frederick Meekins

Will Crypto-Progressives Undermine Fundamentalism's Patriotic Nature?

Attempting to maintain their affectation that they are too cool for school (or perhaps in their case church), the pastoral council of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina in a SermonAudio podcast weighed in once again on the assorted flag debates breaking out across America.

Previously, the leadership of this congregation in the heart of Dixie came out firmly against the Confederate Flag.

However, this headlong march into a globalist progressivism did not stop there.

For the pastor, who doesn't seem to mind shoving mention of his distinguished military career in your face when he thinks the invocation of such should earn him some due deference, mentioned that he was not too keen on Christians swearing allegiance to the American flag either.

In his tirade, the minister propagated the impression that Old Glory does not necessarily represent the higher values upon which the nation rests but rather whatever regime might be holding power at any given moment.

But even Christians now trying to get their priorities in order while retaining a place of honor for the American flag but in subordination to the Christian flag are not immune from this particular church's derision and contempt.

In the analysis of a church that flies the Christian flag in this manner, it was snorted that doing so might cause offense and that God does not need a flag.

Should an activist Jew travel by Pastor Sean Harris' church and not want to be bothered by the sight of a steeple, should his congregation rush to take that symbol down as well to eagerly comply with the tyranny closing in around them?

After all, God doesn't require a steeple either.

There is nothing in Scripture about churches holding expansive properties rivaling some shopping centers or even small amusement parks in size.

God is perfectly fine with small bands meeting in tiny churches or even catacombs.

Does that mean Pastor Harris and his dutiful sidekicks are going to gleefully applaud the seizure of their building for the establishment of an atheist museum as occurred in the case of the former Soviet Union or perhaps the erection of a gay pride center which might be more fitting in light of the particular variety of carnality and licentious unbelief epidemic to this particular moment in history?

One of the assistant pastors confessed that he was not comfortable pledging to a Christian flag either.

Then shouldn't we be leery of making all sorts of church membership vows and pledges when these are mentioned no where in the pages of Scripture?

Perhaps one of the most interesting things about a church that is taking such a public stance against the American flag is that on its SermonAudio profile page there is a picture of that church building where there isn't simply a single tasteful flagpole with the national ensign flying in front of the church but rather at least four or five American flags.

It was argued in the exposition in condemnation of flags that a sanctuary should be laid out and adorned in such a fashion that a Christian from a foreign land (Palestine was given as an example) would not be offended by any potential Americana such as the flag.

Christian or not, if a Palestinian comes into an American church and gets jacked out of shape at explicitly American paraphernalia, he can slink back to his Third World terrorist-sympathizer excrement pile.

By Frederick Meekins

Oration Proves The Extent To Which Michelle Obama Undermines American Liberty

It could be justifiably argued that academic commencement addresses are pretty much a waste of time. If people were honest, nobody usually gives a hoot about what is being said. Most are simply in attendance to hear their name or see a loved one walk across the stage and then they are off to either a family dinner or party.

Yet, in the past, a number of commencement addresses have provided a bit of an historical snapshot into the perspectives of the foremost leaders and thinkers of the respective time. Perhaps the most prominent that comes to mind is none other than Winston Churchill's describing the advancement of the Soviet bloc across Europe as an Iron Curtain.

Likewise, though for considerably less auspicious reasons, First Lady Michelle Obama's Oberlin College commencement oration provides considerable insight into our own political era. The speech also serves as evidence that the First Lady is hardly the first rate intellect propagandists have made her out to be.

The Gettysburg Address begins, “Four score and seven years ago.” The Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self evident.”

Not every piece of public rhetoric is going to stir the soul with such inspiration. But with the opening of “Hi! How are you all doing?”, it is obvious that the First Lady didn't even bother to try.

It's not like there is probably all that much going on in Michelle Obama's brain to begin with. For despite all of the wisdom that a graduation speaker of her status can attempt to impart to the assembled before her, she launches into the same manner of tirade she and her consort Barack have invoked throughout the course of his presidency to manipulate those mesmerized by them into surrendering whatever it is that the couple desires.

For nearly the first thing out of her mouth beyond that idiotic greeting that reminds one more of the quack doctor Nick Riviera on the Simpsons rather than a leader worthy of any kind of admiration was in essence the First Couple's usual pronouncement of “Look at me. I'm Black. And you are racist if you don't comply with our demands no matter how ridiculous or outlandish they might be.”

Her proclamation was not articulated that way exactly. However, that categorization was an accurate summary of what did follow.

The First Lady pointed out that Oberlin was the first college in America to view Blacks and women as legitimate students. However, seldom are the Obama's interested in history that does not either further their agenda or manipulate spineless Whites into compliance.

For in her commencement oration, the First Lady did not reference this historic fact for the purposes of reminding what the individual is capable of through the processes of scholastic advancement and personal improvement. Rather, Michelle Obama proceeded to harp upon the necessity of compliance with the collective and agitation on the part of the herd mentality.

The First Lady warned, “And the truth is, graduates, after four years of thoughtful, respectful discussion and debate here at Oberlin...you might find yourself a little dismayed by the clamor outside of these walls --- the name calling, the negative ads, the folks yelling at each other on TV. After being surrounded by people who are so dedicated to serving others and making the world a better place, you might feel a little discouraged by the polarization and gridlock that too often characterize our politics and civic life.”

Maybe so. But if the world outside the campus is discordant and filled with conflict, those embracing the worldview and policies of the First Lady are just as guilty (if not even more so) for making it that way.

One particular question raised by those turning a critical mind to Michelle Obama's diatribe is on what grounds are things obligated to be as the First Lady prefers them?

In the portion of the speech just quoted, Frau Obama rhetorically crafts the impression that those not relenting to the social vision of leftwing academics somehow do not want to serve others or make the world a better place. This is especially relevant when the assembled she is addressing rank among the foremost in insisting that absolute standards do not exist or are determined by the prevailing demagogue of the moment.

Frau Obama continued, “...you don't get to be...cautious or cynical.” The question must be asked, “And what if we are?”

For what the First Lady is saying when she invokes the words “cautious” and “cynical” is that you are not to question the social engineering directives when these are handed down by elites. Your's is not to reason why; your's is but to do or die.

To the likes of Obama and related totalitarians, the ideal is best visualized in a scene from the movie “Conan The Barbarian”.

In the particular sequence, Thulsa Doom (played by James Earl Jones) signals to one of his cult followers to come to him immediately. The deluded acolyte doesn't descend the winding staircase. Instead, without hesitation, the doomed soul voluntarily plunges to his death gleefully to satisfy the whim of his master and false god.

Frau Obama reflected, “Are you planning to rally for marriage equality on the steps of the Supreme Court? I certainly hope so.” She continued, “Just think about the folks who are winning those battles...to ensure that everyone in this country can marry the person they love. Think about how just 10 years ago, gay marriage was legal in just one state...and today it is legal...”

And wasn't her husband at the time numbered among those that counseled against the recognition of such illicit unions? If so, shouldn't he be removed from office in the same manner as the Mozilla executive that did nothing more subversive than contribute to a referendum initiative that opposed gay marriage before the matter became part of the settled orthodoxy few possess the courage to question for fear of what will happen to their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor?

What is it, then, that makes these positions right or wrong? Is it the whims of the mob?

If so, those opposing the capriciousness of the First Lady are well within their rights to be as cynical and cautious as they want to be. For there exists no basis of rationality from which the First Lady can legitimately launch her criticisms and assaults.

Are these principles grounded in some kind of basis that will outlast the arbitrary tyranny unfolding around us (gentler as it might be at the moment but which Friedrich Hayek warned would grow increasingly violent as the policies imposed would grow increasingly at odds with human nature)? If so, those that the First Lady and her devotees would rather intimidate into silence are obligated in the name of higher truth to avail themselves of every moral means to defend such eternal verities.

In the Obamaist perspective, the individual exists as little more than grist for the elites to grind down as they see fit. The First Lady fondly recalled, “Think about those elections in 2008 and 2012 when idealistic young people ... worked for hours for little money and less sleep ... Think about the millions of folks who got out to vote on Election Day, waiting in the cold and rain in lines that stretched for hours, refusing to leave until they made their voices heard.”

And for what? Did the First Lady endure similar suffering and deprivation?

If anything, she made out like a bandit. During the couple's occupation of the White House, they have taken multiple high-priced vacations, flown in pizza chefs from Chicago, and procured evening gowns costing thousands upon thousands of dollars.

Under the rule of the Obamas, most Americans (especially those that did not vote for Barack to begin with) have had the enjoyment of their own petty lives significantly curtailed. For whereas in the age prior to skyrocketing fuel and food costs one might have gone to a place like Walmart quite regularly, now it seems one might get to such an establishment about four times per year.

Towards the conclusion of her oration, Frau Obama declared, “And I want to be clear: Every ordinance, every ballot measure, every law on the books in this country --- that is your concern.”

That sounds noble and inspirational upon an initial hearing. For example, if some corrupt backwoods sheriff deprives someone of a different color of their constitutional protections elaborated upon in the Bill Of Rights, it ought to bother you whether you are from New York City or the cotton fields of Georgia.

But just how deeply do you want people from other parts of the country probing into the nuts and bolts mechanics of your local government or even way of life?

For example, those in more liberal areas such as New York City or San Francisco might assume that it is their business what children in Appalachia are taught regarding evolution and creation science. But conversely, should Rednecks have an appreciable say as to whether or not someone should be allowed to walk down the streets of such urban centers brandishing so-called “assault weapons” without the police being allowed to say one thing whatsoever to such individuals?

Towards the conclusion of her oration, Michelle Obama admonished, “Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.” Ironically, it is through compliance with that very axiom that true patriots must continue to expose this First Couple for what they are as their regime draws to a close and why Americans must remain vigilant as Barack and Michelle will no doubt continue to undermine our freedoms from the shadows of private life once they leave office.

By Frederick Meekins

I Don't Owe Illegal Aliens Anything

By David Lawrence

I don’t want to bend over backwards for illegal aliens.  We have enough malnourished Americans about whom to concern ourselves. Kindness begins at home.  I don’t see Mexicans handing out citizenship to Americans.

 

Too many crimes are committed by illegal immigrants.  A particularly egregious one is Francisco Sanchez, 45, who was arrested in connection for the killing of Kathryn Steinle, 32.  She was walking with her dad along Pier 14 in San Francisco.   Sanchez had already been deported five times.  Where is the wall to keep out repeat offenders?

 

In court you are innocent until proven guilty.  In border control you should be guilty until proven innocent.  The immigrant is not on trial for a potential long prison sentence.  He is merely being told that he is not eligible for entry and should try again when his papers are in order.

 

Kathryn Steinle was shot to death while walking with her father, Jim, along a pier on the San Francisco waterfront.  Shouldn’t there be some extra punishment for killing a daughter in front of her father?  Isn’t that beyond the milk of inhuman unkindness? Isn’t that a hate crime against the family structure.

 

Sanchez’s criminal history includes seven prior felony convictions.  Isn’t he the kind of degenerate that Donald Trump is talking about?

 

What’s San Francisco’s complicity in Steinle’s death?  Shouldn’t the politicians who play  goody goody with illegal, criminal immigrants go to jail for complicity in the murder of Steinle.

 

Don’t we have enough American murderers without having to import Mexican killers?

 

 A borderless country is a country without values and tradition.  It is turning the American Dream into a nightmare. It is the malfeasance of liberals who inadvertently want to turn government into anarchy by emphasizing government.  Our jobs go to immigrants who have not historically earned them.

 

Kathryn Steinle would be alive today if San Francisco had honored Sanchez’s outstanding drug warrant.

The fruits of immigration looseness are the death of innocent citizens. San Francisco corroborated with Sanchez in killing Steinle. 

The politicians congratulate themselves while they allow their own people to be murdered.  The liberal voters probably  feel more sympathy  for Sanchez than Steinle.  Perhaps it will hit home when members of their own families suffer from the murderous chaos of progressivism.

Godless Cathedral Dean Wants History Censored In The Name Of Revolution

The Dean of the National Cathedral in Washington wants stained glass windows honoring Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee removed.

The idea is that the role of the Cathedral is not so much to serve as an historical memorial but rather as a tool of propaganda to subliminally manipulate those exposed to the edifice into embracing the revolutionary consciousness preferred by the prevailing elite.

If the windows commemorating the Confederacy are to come down, should the body of Woodrow Wilson be disinterred from its resting place in these formerly holy halls?

After all, was not the former president a segregationist, so much so that he resegregated the civil service?

But then again, his corpse will probably be allowed to remain given that he embraced the preferred mindset of this cathedral's religion that the masses of humanity exist to be molded and conditioned by the technocrats ruling over them.

While we are at it, perhaps the questions should be raised as to how long until the Cathedral tosses its Christian iconography out with the morning trash as well?

After all, Gary Hall, the Dean of the Cathedral, is on record in the Washington Post claiming to be a Christian atheist, meaning that he doesn't believe in God but not so much so as to forsake his comfortable church-provided lifestyle.

His ecclesiastical superior, Bishop Mariann Budde, is little better.

According to VirtueOnline, she recently blasphemed in the Cathedral by admitting during an ordination service that she no longer prays in the name of the Trinity.

And on the day the cross is taken down, you will probably find Republican presidential candidates stepping over each other in the rush to get to the microphone to posture and preen how wonderful it is that the old emblem of suffering and shame will no longer be allowed to sew division among the creeds and faiths of the human species.

By Frederick Meekins

Ethicist Fuddles The Differences Between Genocide & Infanticide

During a lecture titled “Ethics In The Age Of Terror & Genocide”, an astute member of the audience observed during the question and answer portion of the presentation how many Americans recoil in outrage at the concept of genocide but are morally comfortable with abortion.

It was interesting to hear the lecturer wiggle herself out of the conundrum by invoking the technicality that genocide is the killing of people because they are members of a particular group while abortion does not necessarily target the victim for extermination for that particular reason.

That is, of course, unless you are a confirmed Sangerian.

According to the logic elaborated in the response, it is only wrong to eliminate groups and not necessarily individuals.

The propagandist proceeded to elaborate a number of criteria separating abortion from genocide.

Among these were the rights of the woman and how the unborn child is not a human life that can exist on its own.

But how are these appreciably different than the justifications invoked by the Nazis such as living space for the German people and that the inhabitants of these targeted areas weren't really humans capable of surviving on their own either by the standards of that particular regime?

By Frederick Meekins

Scout Head Promotes Immorality Among The Organization's Ranks

Speaking to a national meeting of the Boy Scouts in his role as the organization's president, former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in reference to gays among the ranks of the group's membership and administration proclaimed that “we must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.”

He insisted that such an adaptation of policy was necessary or the assembled would be required to face “the end of us as a national movement.”

What he is saying is that there are no enduring values or standards.

According to such logic, dependent upon the context the Boy Scouts are no more morally superior to the Hitler Youth of Nazi Germany, the Red Pioneers of the Soviet Union, or an ad hoc ISIS training camp in the Syrian desert.

The Scout Oath reads, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and country, and to obey Scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

The Scout Law is summarized as “A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

But what happens when these virtues hinder a Darwinian understanding of survival of the fittest?

Should this classic moral code be abandoned should an ethic based on tooth and claw prove more utilitarian and efficacious?

That is, after all, what Robert Gates is advocating.

No wonder the war against terror, in part, floundered under his tenure as the Secretary of Defense.

By Frederick Meekins

Obama's Disarming Humor

By David Lawrence

Obama disarms criticism by humor.  I doubt that it is his humor because he openly borrows from his numerous writers. 

 

But if he can get you to laugh along with him and identify with his chuckle he can prevent your being disgusted by how he tears America down, insults Christianity and praises the contributions of the Muslims.  The only original thought Obama ever had was that he could fool all of the people all of the time instead of some of the time.  No modesty there. Hubris should have been his middle name instead of Hussein.

 

Obama complains in Breitbart (http://clashdaily.com/2015/05/breaking-obama-openly-states-he-wants-to-muzzle-fox-news/) that Fox News says that “the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving….” 

 

He remonstrates against the right wing media’s assault on his poor buddies.  Oh, that’s right, he has no poor buddies.  He lives in the White House mansion among servants and secret service men.  He flies private jets and rides limousines.  He doesn’t know a poor person from his dining room opulence.

 

And then as if he were in Communist Russia in the 50’s he attacks the press, particularly, Fox News. It seems to be that the President trying to censor the press by innuendo should be illegal.  He wants freedom to enslave the press; freedom to mock it. He turns the First Amendment on its head by shaking it by its heels through satire.   

 

He quotes the poor on Fox News, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.”  But it’s not whatever. I’ve seen the greedy Obama Phone fanatics on television. And there’s no way that they deserve free phones when others have to work for them.  Why not give them free cars and boats?

 

The idea that giving them a phone will help them to get a job is a joke.  Almost as cutting edge  as Obama’s jokes aimed at Fox News.

 

Obama complains that “very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.”  But Fox doesn’t complain about that because that family is doing everything right and can survive without undeserved handouts.  

 

Mahatma Gandhi said that journalism celebrated tragedies rather than good news.  How long is it going to take Obama to understand this simple fact?  That good journalism is critical not flattering.

 

Obama further wants to censure the media.  He wants to change people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy. And “that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.”

 

The only problem is that Obama is not capable of a “broader conversation” because he is trapped in a restrictive, liberal, progressive trope. 

 

It must be wonderful to live in the most beautiful mansion in America and get to identify with the poor while having the pleasure of feeling sorry for yourself.

 

A Lesson in Haste

By Brian Ferguson

It is the well-known tendency of Liberal-Progressive thought to consider only its intentions in seeking to change society and never the unintended consequences of its actions. Leftists during the 1960s energetically promoted a  culture of personal hedonism that was, by their own intentions, to be applied to all but one specific area of human life.  It was not to apply to the abundant ownership of material possessions which was seen as the unique preoccupation of the "exploitative" American capitalist system ("Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can" John Lennon famously sang in the song “Imagine” which hit #3 on the U.S. charts). The folly of this thinking can be found both in the incredibly naive assumption that the desire to enjoy material goods (and even to amass them) is unique to a capitalist system as opposed to being a part of human nature as history itself attests,  and second in the belief that you can create a general attitude within a society but safely cordon it off so that it doesn't enter into various other areas of human life. 

        Nevertheless this way of thinking became the rule of the day, and several decades later what we find is a society whose dealings with material goods has been  defined by the hedonistic ideal first introduced during this influential era. Another way to describe the  event is as the transition from a culture of ownership to a culture of indulgence. The culture of ownership is embodied in the traditional concept of the American Dream. This concept has to do with the eventual attainment by both individuals and families of a certain high standard of of living, but is distinguished by its focus upon the concept of objective achievement. It is not defined merely as the enjoyment of material goods but just as much by the satisfaction of having earned those things, and of becoming a full owner. In other words, the attainment was just as important as the enjoyment. Thus the concept of the American Dream naturally leads to a society of owners.

       

The culture of indulgence however is about the immediate gratification of the individual by nothing more than the enjoyment of the material good. Only gratification matters, therefore ownership is of little importance since through credit and debt such things can be enjoyed without ownership. Enormous debt is the mark of a society of indulgence (both personal debt and government debt). It involves more and more people spending beyond their means in order to acquire more and more material things for the purpose of their immediate gratification. The spending of disposable income, and well beyond it, on inessentials has continually been on the rise decade after decade , while the practice of saving has continually fallen. This course ultimately leads to a society of "serfs" rather than owners.  And so it has come to pass that the Left, in its attempt to thwart the so called materialism of the American free enterprise system, has itself engineered the most virulent and irresponsible strain of materialism yet seen. . 

Review Proves Why Most Christians Films Not Worth Watching

Regarding The Avengers: The Age Of Ultron, radical homeschooler Kevin Swanson is profoundly offended that Captain America verbalized a swear word during the climactic conflict of the film.

Is Kevin Swanson going to maintain that nothing questionable would slip out of his mouth while battling a genocidal Artificial Intelligence on the cusp of perpetrating an extinction level disaster?

The radical homeschooler’s critique of the film went beyond questionable dialog selections on the part of the screenwriters.

Tony Stark in particular was condemned as an individualist and not being much of a team player.

But isn’t that the characteristic of Robert Downey’s interpretation that has made his performance endearing over the course of the interlocking Marvel films and one with which sarcastic loners with a tendency to dance to the beat of their own drum have been able to identify?

As the review progressed, Swanson finally revealed the nature of his ultimate disapproval with the film.

For you see, with the exception of the archer Hawkeye, the protagonists are to be condemned because the are SINGLE (as in unmarried) for a variety of reasons.

For the most part, shouldn’t these characters be applauded for that decision because of the particular vocations in which they find themselves?

Captain America was in suspended animation for over 70 years while the woman he loved, Agent Peggy Carer, aged at a normal rate and if developments in her own TV miniseries are any indication, eventually moved on to marry somebody else as she didn’t even know those many decades that he was even still alive.

So in the eyes of the radical homeschoolers, is Steve Rogers not supposed to work through that profound emotional trauma before wedding someone else that he might not really love?

As to the Incredible Hulk, despite the slight sparks there with Black Widow, perhaps Bruce Banner has character enough to realize that he is better off without a relationship in which the normal stresses of which could set off his condition to the point where he wouldn’t simply snap at his wife in a less than courteous tone but instead level his entire neighborhood.

Though it was amusing to discover that Hawkeye had a secret family that he had concealed from his colleagues in the espionage and costumed adventurer communities and that served as a reminder of what these heroes are fighting for, these are action adventure films (not chick flicks).

While passing romance and flirtations add flavor to the narrative, the primary purpose for these films is to see robots and aliens blown up.

I don’t really care to see Superman flying Lois Lane from store to store looking for new drapes for the Fortress of Solitude.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing said by Swanson in his analysis was that we must be careful not to limit the designation of witchcraft to those claiming to be witches.

Instead, anyone whose power comes from a source other than God is guilty of this grievous offense.

An argument can be made as to the technical accuracy of that claim.

However, it must be remembered that Swanson advocates a political philosophy known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism that calls for the implementation of Biblical law as the nation’s comprehensive social policy and statutory code.

Since that is the case, how ought and to whom should the Biblical injunction of “Suffer not a witch to live” be applied?

For if definable limits are not placed upon such a principle, it could certainly be manipulated as a clever way to justify executing your political and philosophical opponents.

Vigilance is required whether one is dealing with a maniacal artificial intelligence or a podcasting minister that hasn’t fully considered the implications of his theological pronouncements.

By Frederick Meekins

Are Church Membership Requirements Exceedingly Intrusive?

In a church membership class posted on SermonAudio, those in attendance for the proceedings were required from the sound of it to fill in a seating chart of those around them each week supposedly for the purposes of learning the names of the fellow students.

If Independent Baptists insist that their practices are derived from sola scriptura, where is the precedent for the described classroom procedure described in the pages of Holy Writ?

If a church requires such rigmarole, doesn't the church run the risk of alienating those with social anxiety?

For I know I'd go running out of there at the end of the class like Chiroptera fleeing Ghenna.

Some churches require potential members to endure lengthy interrogations and questionnaires that go beyond determining whether or not the catechumen ascents to the basics of the Apostles or Nicene Creeds before being granted that particular status.

If failure to answer in the preapproved manner will result in a denial of membership, what is to prevent the applicant from simply answering in the manner that the leadership expects to hear?

For example, is it really the business of a Christian school administrator whether or not your child has a TV in their room in the privacy of your own home.

Furthermore, who can blame these applicants for fudging their answers when across Christendom the believer is berated and beaten over the head homiletically on a regular basis if one is just an attender and not necessarily a formalized member?

By Frederick Meekins

No Mere Consideration: The Apologetic Quandaries Found In The Lewis Classic

Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'.” Only those seeking to live in utter irrationality can ignore the arguments made in favor of the God of the Bible by C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity”. Three of the most compelling issues the skeptic will have to confront when reading this classic include the universality of the moral law, the existence of a personal God as Creator of the Universe, and whether Jesus is who He says He is.

Fundamental to the creed of the contemporary skeptic is the notion that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes. However, that is itself an absolute. And no matter how cool it is to feign the attitude that one exists beyond right and wrong, no one wants to be treated as if right and wrong did not exist.

Of this universal truth, Lewis observes, “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right or Wrong, you will find the man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' before you can say 'Jack Robinson' (15).”

Since law exists whether we like it or not, it must have a source beyond us in order to be binding upon us and to avoid degenerating into a matter of mere preference or opinion. Since this universal law represents the codification of a set of principles, it could not have come about as a result of random choice, but rather through some kind of purposeful intelligence. Thus, a second issue confronting the skeptic in “Mere Christianity” is whether the source of this law is personal or impersonal.

The views regarding God can be divided into two basic viewpoints. On the one hand, pantheism believes, in the words of Lewis, that “God animates the universe as you animate your body: that the universe is almost God (30).” Traditional monotheists, on the other hand, believe that God is distinct from creation in a manner similar to “...a man making a picture or composing a tune...A painter is not a picture (30).”

From our understanding of law as a set of principles established for determining right and wrong, the monotheistic conception would be the one most in keeping with the evidence. For if God and the universe were co-terminus as postulated by the pantheists, by definition whatever is, is ought. Only by being distinct from what He has made is God justified in pronouncing judgment upon it.

Since God is the source of perfection and man so marked by imperfection, there must be some way for these seemingly irreconcilable twains to meet. Since man is imperfect, there is nothing he can do of his own merit to bring himself to God's level. Rather, the imperfect can only be made whole and elevated to a higher status on the terms of the perfect.

Since God is the ultimate authority and source of power, it is up to Him to determine the method through which man can be reconciled to God. Of all of the religions of the world, orthodox Biblical Christianity is the only one where that particular belief's conception of salvation is not granted on the basis of the adherent's own merit or accomplishment but rather as a result through the realization that one's own works are as filthy rags and by throwing oneself on the mercy of a loving God willing to extend forgiveness to those embracing what God has done for them rather than on what they have done for Him. In the Christian tradition, this eternal pardon is granted to those believing that Jesus as the only Son of God lived the perfect life that we could not, suffered and died upon the cross for the sins of the world, and rose in bodily form from the dead.

Thus, the most important issue the skeptic is forced to confront is exactly who do they think Jesus is. Impressed with the morals of Jesus but not wanting to admit that they themselves are sinners, most unbelievers think they are broadminded enough by giving Jesus an esteemed status as an ethical teacher from the past with no present claim on their lives.

However, as Lewis points out, a moral person would not say the things about himself that Jesus said about Himself. Lewis writes, “A man who...said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be a lunatic --- on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg --- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice (41).”

Much of the spiritual danger of the contemporary world lies in the numerous distractions available to those preferring to avoid those fundamental questions nagging at the human soul. C.S. Lewis, in “Mere Christianity”, forces the reader to confront these issues in an engaging and forthright manner.

By Frederick Meekins

A Review Of “Why I Am Not A Christian” By Bertrand Russell

Without a doubt, Bertrand Russell stands as one of the most formidable minds of the modern era. Through his efforts with Alfred North Whitehead in “Principia Mathematica”, Russell further elaborated the relationship between mathematics and deductive logic. Russell's endeavors, however, were not confined to complex philosophical treatises having little influence outside of academic circles. Russell's work spanned the intellectual spectrum, ranging from works on the history of philosophy to international relations and political theory. Russell even produced newspaper articles for mass consumption. But despite his prolific intellectual output, Russell did not apply his mathematician's logic and objectivity to much of his non-scientific thought, especially in the area of religion as embodied by his work “Why I Am Not A Christian”.

Instead of addressing a single topic throughout the entire work, “Why I Am Not A Christian” is a collection of articles and essays addressing Russell's position on religious matters in general and issues regarding Christianity in particular. Proverbs 23:7 says, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so he is.” Many times influential voices speaking in the opinion-molding institutions of academia and media contend that one's views on religion do not necessarily impact other areas of existence such as the political or the sociological. Scripture teaches that this popular opinion is incorrect. However, the Bible is not readily accepted by those arguing for the mentioned opinion. Even though the work argues against the traditional positions of Christianity, the power of “Why I Am Not A Christian” resides in how it links one's views regarding religion with one's beliefs about society and the world despite the author's attempt to argue otherwise.

Russell's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) found their basis in his position that the theistic proofs are not as conclusive as believers make them out to be. When asked what he would say if confronted by the Creator at his death, Russell said he would respond by saying, “God! Why did you make evidence of your existence so insufficient?”

In “Why I Am Not A Christian”, Russell proceeds to critique each of these arguments. None of them escape his scathing scrutiny. Of the argument from the First Cause, Russell remarks that, if everything must have a cause, then God cannot be the uncaused cause by those following in the intellectual lineage of Aquinas. Russell claims that this argument actually results in an endless digression of creators begetting creators much like those mythological cosmologies where the Earth rests atop an elephant resting atop a tortoise etc. etc (7).

From the outset, Russell argues from faulty notions. According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, in a thoroughly naturalistic context something cannot come from nothing. But by its definition, a noncontingent being does not require a cause since its existence is complete in itself (289). Only finite contingent beings require a cause.

The next proofs tackled by Russell are the arguments for the existence of God from the evidence of creation. Russell argues that, in the light of Einsteinian relativity, the Newtonian system of natural law is not as binding upon the universe as originally thought. Therefore, these scientific principles cannot be used to argue for the existence of a rational creator. However, one could turn the tables on Russell and point out that the revelations of Einsteinian physics actually provide a better testimony to the existence of God than even the previous Newtonian model.

According to Russell, natural law is nothing more than statistical averages resulting from the laws of chance (Russell, 8). John Warwick Montgomery in “Faith Founded On Fact” rebuts Russell's position by pointing out that the Einsteinian and quantum paradigms actually allow for miracles while maintaining that an ordered universe exists. In those systems attempting to account for the totality of the physical universe, it is God who keeps the universe from instantaneously dissolving into the chaos of individual atoms flying off into their own paths and who can rearrange the normal operations of reality when doing so suits His greater glory such as turning water into wine and resurrecting the dead (Montgomery, 43).

Besides drawing faulty conclusions regarding the validity of the theistic proofs, Russell errs as to their purpose as well. Russell is correct in pointing out that these arguments do leave room for some doubt. Yet this can be said about any other linguistically synthetic proposition about the world as well.

If one wants to get really nit-picky about the matter, one could doubt whether Bertrand Russell himself even existed since the Analysts were not above doubting the veracity of historical knowledge. As much as it might irritate the so-called “scientific mind”, one cannot exist without exercising some degree and kind of faith.

The theistic proofs can serve as a guide pointing towards faith or as a mechanism to help rationally clarify it. They do not properly serve as a replacement for it. Norman Geisler points out that one ought not to believe in God because of the theistic proofs. Rather, the theistic proofs provide one with a basis to reasonably assert that God exists (Geisler, 269).

Having taken on the first person of the triune Godhead, Russell turns his sites onto the second, the Lord Jesus Christ. To his perverse credit in a perverse sort way, Russell does not hind behind the phony religiosity of the liberal and the modernist which states, “Jesus was a good teacher, but...”

Russell openly wonders whether or not Christ even existed. And even if He did, Russell asserts, Jesus is far from being the greatest among human teachers as asserted by the likes of the Unitarians and the New Age movement. At best, according to Russell's scorecard, Jesus comes in at a distant third behind Socrates and Buddha (16). According to Russell, Christ's greatest flaw was His belief in the reality of Hell and His condemnation of those who would not heed the Messiah's call. Socrates provides a superior moral example since Socrates did not verbally castigate his detractors (Russell, 17).

Russell's disdain for those believing in the reality of Hell exposes his own bias rather than prove his dedication to the ideas of truth that he invokes elsewhere to undermine the claims of religious faith. In appraising the idea of Hell, Russell does not give much consideration to the realm of eternal damnation, instead dismissing the concept as a cruel idea (18). But if Hell is real, is not Christ doing the proper thing in warning how such a terrible fate might be avoided? Employing Russell's line of reasoning, it becomes cruel to chastise someone standing under a tall tree with a piece of sheet metal during a thunderstorm since such an exhortation also warns of the dire consequences likely to result from such foolish behavior.

But while Russell questions the historicity of Jesus Christ, he readily accepts that of Buddha even though Christ is perhaps the best documented figure of ancient history. The first accounts of Buddha appear nearly 500 years after the death of that particular religious figure. Those regarding Jesus appear within the first several decades following the Crucifixion.

Allegedly having removed God from His thrown as sovereign of the universe, Russell proceeds to lay out what he does believe primarily in the chapter titled “What I Believe”. Replacing religion as the tool by which man approaches the world, Russell would have man utilize science to determine meaning, reducing the totality of reality to that of mere physics (50). To Russell, even thought is nothing more than the chemical components and electrical impulses arising from the brain's physical composition.

Yet despite believing the material world to be ultimate, Russell saw no problem with making pronouncements regarding the areas of life transcending the material base such as ethics and social organization. Russell boldly states in italicized print for all to read, “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge (56).” However, elsewhere in the very same chapter, Russell says, “...nature in itself is neutral, neither good nor bad (55).”

If humanity is nothing more than the sum of the physical composition of the species, it is then inappropriate to elaborate a theory of morality. Morality poured into such a naturalistic crucible becomes nothing more than individual personal preferences, which do seem to serve as Russell's source of moral reasoning. According to Russell, traditional morality is based upon cruelty and ignorance. However, according to John Frame in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God”, to invoke the values of love and knowledge (even when done so to undermine traditional conceptions of virtue) is to inadvertently defend the divinely established order of creation traditional moral values rests upon in the first place since such values are only desirable if a divinely created hierarchy exists (93-102).

Ultimately, one cannot craft a system of ethics solely based on science legitimately defined as science. At best, science can only assess and clarify the situations to which moral principles must be applied. To say that science is the source of moral values is to argue for a scientism or a naturalism as loaded with as many conceptual presuppositions as any theistic creed.

One can base one's ethical beliefs on the record of Scripture, which II Timothy 3:16 says is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for corrections, and for instruction in righteousness. Or, one can operate under man's own unaided reason, which is finite, corruptible, and known to change every five to ten years subject to FDA approval. History reveals which has the far better track record.

Unlike many Christians who do not take their worldview outside the church sanctuary or seminary classroom, Bertrand Russell was not one content to keep his philosophy and ideology confined to the level of an academic exercise. In terms of political activism, this was manifested by his vocal opposition to the nuclear diplomacy engaged in by both the United States and the Soviet Union during the tensest days of the Cold War.

However, the application of Russell's worldview did not always lead him to pursue admirable yet perhaps naive goals such as world peace. In fact, Presbyterian minister D.James Kennedy suggests in “Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul” that Russell may have formulated his philosophical position regarding religious matters as a justification for his erotic proclivities, the lanky intellectual having actually had numerous adulterous relationships including philanderous escapades with the daughters of friends and colleagues (173). In fact, Russell social views derived from his foundational assumptions sparked considerable controversy. After all, it was not his “Principia Mathematica” that cost him a professorship at the City College of New York but rather his views regarding marriage and personal morality.

Seeing man soley as the product of natural processes and merely as a highly evolved animal, Russell's views regarding human intimacy and procreation reflect this sentiment. According to Russell, much of traditional morality --- especially that dealing with sexual ethics --- is based upon superstition. In fact, Russell believes that it would be beneficial for society and family life if the traditional understanding of monogamous, life-long, God-ordained marriage was openly violated. In these matters, Russell sounds much like a contemporary Planned Parenthood operative or public school sex educator. For example, Russell argues for no-fault divorce, unhampered sexual promiscuity provided children do not result from such illicit unions, and for temporary trial marriages not unlike the phenomena of cohabitation (Russell, 168-178).

Despite his attempts to expand human freedom and happiness in regards to these matters, Russell's proposals are in reality prescriptions for heartache and disaster. The segment of society sustaining the highest number of casualties in the sexual revolution are the young that Russell had hoped to liberate. According to syndicated columnist Cal Thomas in “The Death Of Ethics In America”, by the age of twenty-one 81% of unmarried males and 60% of unmarried females have had sexual intercourse. However, such carnal stimulation is not necessarily the fulfilling personal growth opportunity Russell claimed it would be.

Venereal diseases rank as the number one form of communicable illness in the United States. And the varieties of this pestilence prevalent today do not always react as well to penicillin as those ravaging the morally deviant of Professor Russell's day (Thomas, 92). Those engaging in Dr. Russell's trial marriages --- what use to be referred to as living in sin --- fare little better. Those participating in such arrangements on average go on to experience higher levels of marital discord and incidents of divorce.

God did not establish the regulations regarding human intimacy in order to rain on everybody's parade. These rules were promulgated in order to bring about the maximum degree of individual well-being and personal happiness. Matthew 19:5 says, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. Hebrews 13:4 adds, “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

To his credit and the shame of the church, Russell does note how women have over the course of history often endured oppressive marriages many times under the sanction and justification of misunderstood interpretations regarding marital submission. However, any cruelty justified under this command is a misinterpretation of the passage's true intent. In Ephesians 5:25, just two verses away from the famous Scripture misused as an excuse for all manner of masculine cruelty, the Bible clearly reads, “Husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church.” This love is to be a sacrificial and gentle love; not the decree of a tyrant even though the husband is the king of the house. Studies indicate that, in reality, marriage is far safer for women than the live-in arrangements advocated by Russell under the euphemism of temporary marriage.

Having dismissed the traditional family and religion (both organized and otherwise) as impediments to humanity's progress, Russell puts his hope for the betterment of mankind in the state. Rather than punish individuals committing sins so heinous that they infringe upon the well-being of society, the state is to manipulate human behavior in order to bring about desired outcomes beneficial to the greater community. In fact, according to Russell, sin defined as an action committed by an individual in defiance of the universal moral order as established by an omnipotent creator does not exist. Sin is merely that which is disliked by those controlling education (159).

Even those committing the most heinous deeds are not beyond the pale of psychological reprogramming or pity much like that lavished upon a wayward dog that cannot help scratching up the furniture. To bring about his scientific utopia, the state would be granted expansive powers in even those most private aspects of existence. For example, Russell's state would go so far as to decree that children must be confiscated from their parents and raised by trained statist experts (Russell, 163).

Russell also suffers from the same paradox afflicting Marx and other socialists in that Russell desires to shrink the power of the state while at the same time dramatically increasing it. While wanting to put economic power into the hands of workers through a system of guilds and syndicates, Russell also sought to establish a world state having a monopoly on the use of force as well as establish guaranteed incomes and the human breeding restrictions mentioned earlier.

The issues raised by Russell's political opinions still possess relevance today with much of contemporary civic discourse an ongoing debate regarding the very kinds of policies advocated by Russell and his leftwing associates. F.A. Hayek noted in “The Road To Serfdom” that, while liberals might have naive but benevolent intentions behind their social engineering proposals, these ultimately require more bloodthirsty totalitarians or others of a similar vain lacking concern for innate human freedoms and constitutional liberties. Even Russell admits that much of human liberty is the result of the interplay between church and state (185). What then would result should the influence be nullified as Russell proposes?

Reflecting upon Russell's proposal of state-run childcare, it is highly doubtful whether or not such a program could be implemented without a great deal of bloodshed or a massive multi-generational conspiracy such as Hillary Clinton's it takes a village mentality and the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of The Child. Programs and policy outlooks such as these seek to alter the fundamental nature of the family primarily through bureaucratic stealth and covert legislative manipulation. Realizing that the proclivities towards marriage and family ran so deeply in the human psyche, even the Soviets had to back off their plank to so openly undermine the oldest of human institutions as part of their diabolical agenda.

And while the wars plaguing mankind are deplorable, the geopolitical landscape allowing them to arise is still preferable to the global tyranny and persecution that would result from a planetary regime that would impose its iron will on any portion of the world refusing to heed its edicts and decrees. At least under the current world order, a small percentage of humanity is able to enjoy some measure of freedom until the Lord's Second Coming.

Contrary to what even the National Rifle Association claims, America's Founding Fathers did not draft the Second Amendment to protect skeet shooting and squirrel hunting. Instead, this constitutional provision established a sense of liberty by creating tension between freemen and the operatives of the state by implying violence could result should government authorities over step the confines of their legitimate powers. Something similar is true with a system of nation-states competing with one another, none of which can tyrannize all of mankind at one time.

By reading “Why I Am Not A Christian”, one is reminded that the current culture war besieging America did not begin with either the inaugurations of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. It is in fact decades and even centuries old. While setting out an agenda and its ideological justification, Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” also provides a glimpse into the cultural disputes of another era.

The final chapter of the book consists of an appendix detailing the court case that ultimately prevented Russell from obtaining a professorship of mathematical and scientific philosophy. Whether or not Russell's critics should have acted so vehemently is open to debate as (to utilize a phrase just employed) there is some virtue to settling things through “open debate” with each side detailing their merits and revealing the weaknesses in the arguments of their opponents. However, history has shown that the concerns raised by those opposed to Russell's appointment were based in legitimate fears.

Though Russell cannot bear sole guilt as much of that must also go to his colleagues sharing in his worldview of loose sex and paternalistic government, this philosophy has gained such prominence in social institutions such as education, entertainment, and even religion. Regard for the family and human life has deteriorated to such a degree that is has become regular to hear in news reports of former mailmen mowing down with machine guns their fellow employees (the act itself now referred to as “going postal”) or of prom queens killing their newborns between dances. The world has never been perfect since the expulsion from Eden, but seldom in history has there been times where such outright evil is openly justified by those in authority such as certain psychologists, elected officials, and media personalities.

Bertrand Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” will not stand as a classic regarding what is explicitly written upon the pages. For the highest rational principle appealed to is that the world should enshrine the thoughts and preferences of Bertrand Russell simply because they are the thoughts and utterances of Bertrand Russell. However, the message it propounds between the lines of each man serving as his own god ranks among the central apologetic challenges of this or any other era. The clear style and detectable fallacies found within the pages of Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” will prepare Christians to take on more sophisticated versions of these arguments wherever they might appear.

By Frederick Meekins

Book review of 'The Da Vinci Code Revisited'

Reviewed by Mary DeKok Blowers for Readers' Favorite

I enjoyed reading The Da Vinci Code Revisited by Christopher H.K. Persaud. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown is advertised to be a novel, but comes across as based on truth. Great danger is at hand for Christians and unbelievers who may be taken in by its heresies. Drawing in influences like the radical feminist movement, and the surge in interest in paranormal, witchcraft, and supernatural thrillers, Brown spins a tale which is nothing if not controversial. 

As Persaud writes, there is much false information in Brown’s book when compared to recorded and available historical accounts. There is much discrepancy between what is said to be the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts and what anyone can read in the news. Most shocking is the persistent rumor that the holy grail is actually Mary Magdalene as a vessel for the child of Jesus Christ since, as it states in Brown’s novel, they were married and continued the bloodline which survives to the current day. A number of these errors grew from some assuming the Nag Hammadi books to be equivalent to the canonized Christian Bible, and that the church had purposely left them out because they were at odds with its agenda. But as Persaud shows, these supposed “lost gospels” were written much later than the eyewitness period and do not even bear the names of the actual writers or agree with the canonized books. It was common in those days to take the name of a famous person, say the apostle Thomas, and apply his name to your book. People then gave it more credence and, ultimately, could drive people away from the church since it was not in agreement or support of the true gospel. 

The first, larger section of The Da Vinci Code Revisited deals with the errors in the novel, and the second section deals with who Christ really is. It provides valuable instruction and many prophecies in support of the bodily resurrection of Christ which, of course, were later fulfilled. A chapter is devoted to a description of the true Christian and his relationship with Christ. Attributes include abhorrence of evil, an attitude of love, and continual prayer. This is not an easy or quick read, but contains all you need to debunk the popular but heretical book, The Da Vinci Code. Revisit it today and see the proof for yourself. 5 stars.

Reprinted from https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-da-vinci-code-revisited

Resurrection Sunday Used As Backdrop For Questionable Presuppositions Regarding Death

A pastor sneered condescendingly in his Easter sermon at his physician for counseling that, if the pastor did not get a particular health issue under control, that the pastor might go to Heaven before his time.

The minister insisted that it is not possible for someone to depart this world before one has completed one's work for God.

Therefore, there really isn't any reason to be concerned about how one will die.

Perhaps the pastor is correct.

You won't depart this world before you are supposed to.

However, it does not follow that the reason you are scheduled for an early departure is not the result of your own stupidity or actions.

When the pastor left church, did he look both ways before turning into traffic?

To employ the kind of logic applied in the homily, wouldn't such a vehicular procedure denote a lack of faith?

If we weren't meant to give much consideration as to the ways in which we leave this world, perhaps God should not have allowed most of them to be so painful.

A pastor confessed to the congregation that he is going to donate his body to science after he dies.

Is the point to see at the Resurrection or the Rapture if any donated organs come flying out of any reprobates that they might have been reassigned to as they are remanded during the process of sanctified glorification to the individual originally holding title?

Furthermore, doesn't this pulpit revelation negate any potential criticisms of cremation this particular Biblical expositor might enunciate in the future?

One can't really berate a congregation or a perplexed individual making a sincere inquiry about how throughout Scriptural and Church History the precedent is for the believer to be buried when one does not intend to be buried oneself.

Throughout my own studies of Christianity, I do not recall any passages where it is detailed that the Apostles, Disciples, or foremost among the Saints willingly surrendered up their remains for the purposes of dissection or experimentation.

By Frederick Meekins