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
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Monday, August 24, 2015
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
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
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
The broadcaster confessed that, given what he knows of Campolo and the Word of God today, he would probably no longer read anything by Campolo.
Most Christians grounded in the Word of God and sound theology realize that Campolo is a borderline apostate if he hasn't already crossed over the line altogether.
If someone wants to avoid Campolo's works, so be it.
That's one's right in a free society.
However, such a proclamation in such a manner as to create the impression that no one ought to read these kinds of works under any circumstances if they want to retain good standing as a member of the broader conservative Evangelical community goes a bit overboard.
Regarding religious leftists such as Tony Campolo, should one decide to read works by such an author, the discerning must remain cautious to subtle error that says as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.
In other words, sometimes you have got to read between the lines.
But unless we ourselves conduct our own research or, perhaps more importantly are encouraged ourselves to do so, how can we be sure that those stymieing individual reflection and curiosity aren't simply out to control us for their own assorted ends?
The call to be like the Bereans requires nothing short of such sanctified suspicion on our own parts.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 10, 2015
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)