Saturday, May 23, 2015

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 ( 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. . 

Thursday, May 21, 2015

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

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

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

Friday, May 1, 2015

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