Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Southern Baptist Functionary Condemns As Neo-Confederates Those Failing To Embrace Trayvonite-Obamaism
Monday, November 24, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
In compliance with the state mandate to curb storm water run off, the Prince George's County Department of the Environment is considering a proposal that would waive the unpopular impervious surface property tax assessment for their properties if churches agree to preach environmentally friendly sermons or engage in other forms of mental conditioning.
What's the big deal, some will ask.
After all, does the Bible not teach us to be good stewards of God's creation?
God's word also instructs the believer to be on guard against wolves in sheep's clothing.
If governments grant tax code favors to religious organizations for ideological compliance in regards to one issue, what is to prevent them from doing so in regards to more controversial matters?
In the name tolerance and diversity, what if governments granted tax and regulatory relief to congregations supporting gay marriage?
What if a government wanted to promote pluralism and inclusion by lavishing all manner of benefits upon a church that agreed not to lift the name of Jesus above all names but instead only reference a nondescript generic God or no God at all but rather just the Ultimate Concern as formulated by Paul Tillich?
How about putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment?
What if to bolster declining birthrates a government lavished tax favors upon churches promising to preach prolife messages?
It is said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
Advocates insist that that the program is strictly voluntary.
However, government programs that start off voluntary can easily end up becoming mandatory.
Anybody remember the assurances of if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan?
From one perspective, the program is completely voluntary with no government shocktroops raiding churches failing to put in the environmental upgrades or enunciating church dogma in such a way to win the approval of the state (at least not yet anyway).
Yet from another perspective, aren't churches that refuse to have their very thoughts policed in this manner punished by having to pay the tax?
Courts have forbidden graduation prayers for being less of a mental intrusion.
By Frederick Meekins
In a series of sermons against C.S. Lewis posted at SermonAudio.com, Pastor Jason Cooley creates the impression that it is wrong to read that particular author's works because of areas in which the famed scholar's theology was deficient by the standard of Biblical orthodoxy.
So why is it not wrong for the pastor to have either read these works or to have familiarized himself with this material?
At one point in the sermon, Pastor Cooley shouts like a lunatic asking if anyone in the congregation still wants to read the disputed books or watch movies inspired by these particular texts. And what if someone responded back “YES!”
In this series of sermons, Pastor Cooley insisted that the title alone of “The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe” ought to be enough to get the believing Christian to avoid the book.
So if witches are evil, what is wrong with casting one in the role of the villain?
Maybe that role should instead, as in the case of many of Stephen King's works of speculative literature, be reserved for ultralegalistic ministers attempting to assert too much control over their congregations and parishioners.
From the sermons, it becomes increasingly apparent that, while Pastor Cooley has a commendable grasp of these areas where caution regarding Lewis would be prudent, the minister does not have much appreciation for the techniques of the literary arts.
This is particularly evident in regards to the scenes Cooley analyzes of Lucy's encounter with the fawn Mr.Tumnus.
For example, Rev. Cooley insists that, since fawns are noted in mythology for their seductive powers, that what Lewis is advocating are indecent carnal relations between underage minors and demoniac spirit beings.
Instead, the greater truth Lewis could be attempting to convey might be for the need to be cautious of that which we might initially find appealing if we consider the literary motif associated with the fawn and how the narrative plays itself out with Mr. Tumnus wanting to capitalize on his initial encounter with Lucy by handing her over to the White Witch.
Sometimes these unsettling realities that we are reluctant to face can be easier to grapple with or stick in the brain in the form of an engaging story rather than be constantly hollered at alone.
However, apparently Pastor Cooley is not much of a proponent of the old adage about a spoonful of sugar getting the medicine to go down.
In his tirades against C.S. Lewis, Pastor Cooley remarked that science fiction is nothing but witchcraft.
As justification for such a claim, Pastor Cooley posits that witchcraft consists of any power that does not come from God.
Once again, what Pastor Cooley possesses in terms of a desire to preserve sound doctrine he sadly lacks in literary understanding.
Admittedly, magic is often an intrinsic component of many forms of fantasy.
However, though science fiction can contain certain mystical elements such as the Force in Star Wars, over all, the genre attempts to provide a technological basis for the impressive wonders described in these works of imagination.
As such, though science fiction can be utilized to promote questionable philosophies, science fiction is morally neutral like most other forms of technology.
As such, does Pastor Cooley condemn the use of electricity or the internal combustion engine?
For though these are based upon natural forces set into motion by God's sustaining power, as in the case of literary speculation in conjecture like science fiction, these are the result of the human mind reflecting upon a fact or a concept and extrapolating from these to configure them in such a way as to result in an until then unrealized application or insight.
Interestingly, developers of these technologies expressed affinities towards ideas and affiliations perhaps even more questionable than those to which C.S. Lewis was drawn.
Henry Ford disseminated “The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion” to promote his particular brand of anti-Semiticism.
Thomas Edison wasn't just at one time a member of Theosophical Society; his research into electricity was intermingled with speculation regarding spiritualist phenomena and communication.
Therefore, does that mean that to remain consistent with Pastor Cooley's call for a radical degree of separation, that Pastor Cooley must repent of his electronic ministries and instead must in faith rely only on those methods utilized by the Apostles in the early days of the Church?
By Frederick Meekins
Comedians everywhere mourn the loss of such a rich source of material, from his classic outburst “The bitch set me up” to the time he was caught having oral sex behind bars.
Not every DC mayor is infamous enough to be mentioned on The Simpsons.
Was quite amusing the time some welfare leech inquired when was he going to do more for those in her economic condition and he replied by asking when was she going to stop having babies.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Bill Cosby probably is a sex pervert. But how is one going to prove allegations made regarding carnal liaisons transpiring over thirty years ago? For all we know, these woman might have liked the attention at the time and merely are now outraged that the famed comedian did not share more of his pudding pops with them. Given Janice Dickinson's history of chemical dependency, how do we know that what she's recalling isn't a bad LSD trip?
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Holder Insinuates That Flippantly Flirting With A White Woman As Evil As Snatching A Police Officer’s Gun
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Of the Muslim prayers allowed in the structure on 11/11/14, the National Cathedral posted on its Facebook page that the service was open only to attendees and interfaith guests.
So apparently the National Cathedral doesn't have a problem with religious exclusion when doing so promotes that institution's anti-Christian and anti-American agendas.
Would a radical Christian sect that opposed homosexuality be allowed to promote their particular theological viewpoint within that particular edifice with the vestry's blessing, especially if the sponsors or participants advocated the use of violence or extend moral approval to those utilizing such to achieve their socioreligious objectives?
Then why is this privilege being extended to Muslims having participated in such outrages?
Monday, November 17, 2014
In particular, one such condemnation intoned that from this alteration in commercial operational policy that America is an evil nation worthy of God's judgment.
So because Walmart was either open on Thanksgiving or opened their doors later that evening, nuclear destruction and annihilation or something comparable should rain down across the nation. That is, of course, what is usually meant by the euphemism of “God's judgment”.
To justify this hardline response to opening stores on Thanksgiving beyond simply frowning upon the decision to actively wanting to see lives ruined because of it, Biblical prohibitions regarding the Sabbath are often invoked.
The intentions might possess a nobility in that these sentiments attempt to construe all of reality through the light of God's word and theology derived from it. However, in terms of religious jurisprudence, the position falls a bit short in terms of serving as a platform upon which one can stand to look righteous in calling for blatant ruination and upheaval.
God no doubt delights when His children offer up gratitude for what He has provided and is angered when this appreciation is not evident. However, it does not follow that one cannot express gratitude in a scheduled ritualized manner prior to engaging in orderly commerce later that same day.
One might even claim that God does not really care one way or another to a great degree about the statutory observance of Thanksgiving Day. It may come as a surprise, but there is nothing found within the pages of the canon of Scripture demanding the observance be commemorated a particular Thursday in November.
It must also be asked to what extent do those enforcing Thanksgiving Day under the Mosaic regulations upholding the Sabbath want these punishments and prohibitions enforced? From Exodus 20:9-11, it is learned that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. Jehovah is quite explicit about this.
In our system of chronometric tabulation, Saturday is the Sabbath. What the vast majority of Christians celebrate each Sunday (especially in the morning) is technically not the Sabbath but rather the Lord's Day to commemorate the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
These have been conflated in the minds of many, especially those under the sway of a strict legalism. However, these days are not the same.
So are those demanding compulsory observance of the Sabbath willing to turn themselves over for execution should they find themselves violating the extensive prohibitions regulating the day? For according to Exodus 31:14, that is the stipulated punishment for those failing to observe the Sabbath of the seventh day if such a regulation still applies beyond Deuteronomical Israel.
When those attending compulsory Sabbath observations return home, do they intend to walk rather than operate a vehicle? For that is the extent to which the most observant Orthodox Jews adhere to the exactness of that divine decree. Senator Joseph Lieberman would not even place his own subway fair card into the electronic ticket-taker.
Furthermore, do those deliberating to make such a chore of relaxation intend to only eat leftovers from the night before or unheated prepackaged foods? Because if the true believing Christian must abide by every Biblical decree in excruciating detail for fear of befalling God's indignation, the preparation of consumables is forbidden as well.
Those more interested in ruining everyone else's celebration rather than simply maximizing their own will respond that simply pointing out what is said plainly in certain passages of Scripture downplayed as a result of those advocating them not wanting a greater majority of Christians to grapple with what is being said actually obscures the greater truth of the principle that is being conveyed. Fair enough.
If not for the principles conveyed by God to the Hebrew forefathers of the need for rest and reflection, mankind might have never comprehended the need for a work environment beneficial for all sides of the economic transaction. Before this revelation, for the most part laborers were little more than fodder to be worked until they dropped and quickly discarded.
However, are those insisting up a slavish adherence to the letter of the law really getting that point across when their homiletical formulations cause the listeners to stop and wonder if what really gets the motors of these scriptural exegetes running is rather body counts, the destruction of property, and overall social upheaval. For are not these in some form or another what is meant by the phrase “God's judgment”?
In these times of widespread debauchery and systematic subversion of Western culture, one usually tries to distance oneself from feminist critiques and condemnation of traditional religion. However, if one desires to be an honest observer of the human condition, one is forced to admit that only a man sitting back with his feet propped up would construe Thanksgiving Day as a Sabbath free from labor.
On the classic sitcom “Home Improvement” starring Tim Allen, one of the wittiest lines ever uttered on the series was verbalized when his sidekick Al Borlin quipped that dinner does not make itself. The remark was very similar to an observation made by my own mother.
If a man fails to realize that Thanksgiving is not some magical occasion where one of the most delicious dinners of the year just sprouts fully formed on the table in a manner akin to manna from Heaven, it is most likely that a woman in either the form of a wife, mother or even unwed concubine has spent much of the day laboring away in preparation.
Interestingly, those often complaining the loudest about the growing irreverence with which the day is treated are not absent from the kitchen because they are given over to the higher spiritual pursuits such as prayer, Bible study, or theological contemplation. Instead, they are plopped in an easy chair or on the sofa watching the most typical of entertainments. And I am not talking about the Westminster Kennel Club but rather NFL football.
The conspicuously religious claim that they are opposed to retailers being opened on Thanksgiving because their delicate consciences are disturbed by something so crass and base as mere commerce being transacted on such a solemn occasion. Then why do they have their peepers glued to the boob tube?
It is quite instructive that this contempt for free market exchange is limited to when it is engaged in by the laboring and servile classes. For the last time I checked, it is doubtful that the players, assorted team personnel, or the media conglomerates were putting on a complimentary exhibition game.
No doubt, millions upon millions of dollars exchange hands to orchestrate whatever number of games take place on this particular day. I am not really aware of the exact number. I usually watch the dog show while eating canned pasta just so I can say I had spaghetti for Thanksgiving.
So why are those deciding to go shopping on Thanksgiving more worthy of having death and misery inflicted upon them more so than those instead either attending the football game or even watching the event on television? Confronted so boldly about what it is that they are advocating, those previously enunciating a desire to see God's wrath dispensed over something as commonplace as going to the mall might attempt to linguistically backpedal by claiming that, in their call for judgment, they did not mean to wish misery or death upon those participating in a disputed activity or behavior.
I've pretty much been in or around Christian circles my entire life even if I don't feel welcomed within them entirely. The phrase “God's judgment” rarely has connotation other than that of sorrow and lamentation unless in rare instances where one is referencing the rewards that will be bestowed upon the believer for the good deeds they did honoring to Christ.
Furthermore, in the vast majority of instances, it's not like those participating one way or the other were prevented from enjoying the primary festivities of the Thanksgiving celebration or were not duly compensated in some manner.
For example, though likely not a universal beneficence bestowed on all employees, most laboring to make the sales happen were probably paid some kind of overtime. If not, such personnel were probably not compelled to work beyond their normal allotment of hours for that particular week. As such, they were payed with their scheduled adjusted to be off at another time.
Of even less moral concern ought to be the ones deciding to participate in these sales events on the consumer side of the transaction. For example, many of these sales were designated to commence well after the customary dinner hour.
As such, by that point in the evening, most would have already cogitated upon whatever thoughts of gratitude would have otherwise fired within their respective synapses. Most are in a turkey-induced catatonia, bloated and passing intestinal gas as they glare in a stupor into the television.
Interestingly, if we are raising the opposition to the opening of retailers on Thanksgiving to the level of Biblical law worthy of incurring divine retribution for violating, it must be pointed out that the commencement of these sales technically aren't even occurring on Thanksgiving. In the context of Hebrew culture and religious jurisprudence, the rendering of the day is not determined from midnight to midnight as occurs in the contemporary system. The day is instead rendered from sundown to sundown.
If one wants to be a stickler to Biblical detail, it must be noted that many of these Thanksgiving sales often commence well after dark. Therefore, under Sabbath prohibitions, it is no more immoral to shop from the disputed 8 to 11:59 PM than it would be during the 8 to 11:59 AM period Black Friday morning.
Those wanting to impose the Old Testament as binding civil legislation insist such must be done because God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So if Americans deserve nuclear annihilation, plague, or whatever manifestation of the Apocalypse tickles your particular eschatological fancy for simply going to the store on Thanksgiving, should our nation also be destroyed for altering the method of rendering the days in compliance with the interpretative principle just enunciated?
It can indeed be upsetting to see what one perceives as our culture moving away from Godly foundations. However, enunciating a desire to see lives ruined and destroyed for such is probably a greater violation of explicit Biblical imperatives (such as the careful invocation of judgment) than the modification of a practice that (though commendable and worthy of continuation) is more of an interpretive application of the divine imperatives to begin with.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Isn’t that akin to saying that if you don’t possess a physician’s or nurse’s level of knowledge of anatomy that you don’t appreciate the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit?
Everybody’s got different things they are interested in.
It is commendable to have a knowledge of church history.
But I don't see the point of laying on a guilt trip on those that really aren't into the topic as an avocation or hobby.
Should the bookworms not that great at math beyond balancing a checkbook be condemned for not being skilled in what is often described as the language in which God wrote the universe into existence?
It is commendable to have an understanding and appreciation for church history.
However, if one becomes to absorbed in the discipline, isn't there a danger of keeping stoked to too intense a degree ancient disputes of long ago?
Just how worked up should the believer still be over the Defenestration of Prague?
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
That might provide a degree of comfort if one's biological family is urging one to engage in blatantly anti-Biblical behavior.
However, such a grandiose sentiment itself needs to be circumscribed by carefully delineated boundaries.
You will always have a higher priority to those through whom you came into the world.
There is something downright shameful regarding some of these missionaries that will willingly die on behalf of the Pygmies in the African bush but hardly give a second thought to their aging parents here in America.
In classical Christian thought, this is the idea of subsidiarity, that your most profound obligations are to those closest to you.
Secondly, by insisting that a more profound loyalty is owed to one's church family than one's biological family can expose the gullible to a shocking litany of potential abuse on the part of church leaders.
For Jim Jones will live in infamy for conditioning numerous followers to place obedience to church structure over the well being of spouses and children, with the coercion and manipulation he subjected them to in the isolation of the jungle ending with hundreds dead.
It is a shame that a sermon purporting to admonish the need for the Christian to heed the lessons of history failed to take into account one of the twentieth century's most profound.
By Frederick Meekins
It is commendable to have an understanding and appreciation for church history. However, if one becomes to absorbed in the discipline, isn't there a danger of keeping stoked to too intense a degree ancient disputes of long ago? Just how ticked off should the believer still be over the Defenestration of Prague?
It is commendable to have a knowledge of church history. I don't see the point of laying on a guilt trip on those that really aren't into the topic as an avocation or hobby. Should the bookworms not that great at math beyond balancing a checkbook be condemned for not being skilled in what is often described as the language in which God wrote the universe into existence?
In terms of the civilian sector, a veteran is no more entitled to a particular occupational position than any other qualified applicant. An associate knows of a veteran in the corporation where both are employed that is quite lackluster in terms of the execution of the assigned tasks and another that is an academy graduate that is appallingly indecisive in terms of management style.
Yes, these are Islamists.
If just interested in quietly practicing their Islamic faith, they'd simply find somewhere else to prayer.
Will women be allowed to participate?
The National Cathedral has embraced the libertine sexual agenda so wholeheartedly that the bells were rung following a Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage like a war had ended or a new monarch crowned.
How many mosques or Islamic centers are open to distinctively Christian prayers?
Click On The Headline
Obama Extends Massive Carbon Footprint To Assure Chinese Overlords Americans Will Be Brutalized Under Environmentalist Dictatorship
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
But what if a youngster, particularly as they move into the adolescent and teenage years, is able to discern spiritual truth from deception for themselves?
If that aptitude is irrelevant to the discussion, what about these ministers and teachers that go beyond the message that witchcraft is to be avoided but can themselves go into exacting detail regarding the plot twists of the Harry Potter saga that it is obvious that they have either read the books or seen the movies?
That is akin to simply not warning of the dangers of pornography but being able to critique how convincingly particular actors in that debauched genre are able to pull off roles as pizza delivery lads or coeds needing the dormitory plumbing snaked.
Should they be called upon to repent as well?
What gives this occupational class an exemption to research this material first hand but not the remainder of us?
If we are to be forbidden from investigating these things on our own, how do we know that the line they are pedaling us is really true?
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, November 10, 2014
The purpose of the meeting was to reflect upon and address those that embrace Catholic teaching on marriage and the family but also experience homosexual temptation.
But instead of encouraging those that are struggling to live the right way despite the desires of their flesh, some have instead decided to criticize the goal of reconciling these combating inclinations.
Ryan Dobson, the slovenly tattooed beatnik son of James Dobson of Focus On The Family, is quoted in a ChristianNews.net article as saying, “Sexuality is not an identity; sexuality comes from one's identity. My identity does not come from my intimate relationship with my wife; my identity comes directly from my relationship...with God.”
Those words can be a powerful encouragement for those struggling against this variety of sin --- both homo and heterosexual.
However, haven't those affiliated with Focus On The Family over the years such as James Dobson and Albert Mohler carved out for themselves lucrative niche ministries guilt tripping those not married by the age of 25?
In essence, these ministers and scholars have come dangerously close to reducing individuals to little more than their sexual identities.
In these circles, it is not simply enough to teach that heterosexual marriage is the only relationship in which the manifestation of carnal affections is not a profound sin.
On his broadcasts and audio recordings, Mohler has suggested that churches should actually interrogate and verbally harass young adult singles as to why they have not yet married.
Our identity is indeed grounded in Christ and not over what elicits a stirring in the loins.
As such, perhaps it is about time for churches to leave alone those that have not fallen into open sin in this area of their lives and lend sensitive support rather than condemnation to those that have requested assistance in battling these particularly vexing temptations.
By Frederick Meekins
Because God in Christ worked out the plan of salvation in a particular moment of time, I don’t see how it follows that the true Christian is obligated to have a lifelong love of history to the point where you read the discipline regularly. Isn’t that akin to say that if you don’t possess a physician’s or nurse’s level of anatomy that you don’t appreciate the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit? Everybody’s got different things they are interested in.
Thursday, November 06, 2014
On the other hand, he congratulated the Occupy Movement as a more mature perspective.
So on what grounds is a movement morally superior that defecates on police cruisers and desecrates churches to one that for the most part upholds as an ideal as little reliance upon government as possible?
Now, as in the case of Thanksgiving and Christmas, assorted propagandists are laying it on thick with assorted forms of guilt regarding what these youngsters have accumulated as a result of their own gumption and achievement.
In the latest manifestation of the false altruism racket, youngsters are admonished to surrender their confections for distribution to the armed forces.
Let the kids keep their own candy.
Shouldn't the question to ask be why can't adults in the military get their own candy?
At one time, weren't soldiers issued chocolate bars and the like for the purposes of seducing foreign prostitutes?
Perhaps there should instead be a lobbying campaign to Congress or the Pentagon to include candy as a part of standard rations.
The claim is made that these youngsters don't need the candy they've collected for a number of health reasons.
So then why is it being applauded as a noble undertaking to engage in the nutritional sabotage of the military service personnel of the United States of America?
By Frederick Meekins
In commenting on the proliferation of media technologies that allow for the individualization of media consumption, it was remarked that the syncronicity of everyone watching a program at the same times has been lost. What does that matter? It has been years since I've actually talked to an individual about a television program both parties involved in the conversation actually watched anyway.
Wednesday, November 05, 2014
If this wasn't bad enough, Pope Francis further elaborated, “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life.”
In other words, Pope Francis is not so much a Christian but rather a Platonist.
Christianity holds that God brought forth the world from nothingness.
John 1:3 reads, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Colossians 1:16-17 stipulates in concurrence, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth...And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Platonism, on the other hand, believes in accord with the assumptions hinted at in the Pope's statement that matter exists eternally and independent from God.
God merely reshaped to the best of His ability that which was already there.
Pope Francis is to be commended for his attempt to preserve the metaphysical freedom of human beings in playing a role in determining their eternal destiny.
But in positing the cosmology that he does, what guarantee are we provided that the system won't go spiraling out of control or that the promises made by God are even trustworthy?
For example, if God did not bring matter nor the laws governing physical substance into existence and is Himself subject to these limitations as inviolable standards rather than by His own volition, why ought we to believe that He is able to cause a virgin to conceive a son, and for that son to rise from the dead after dying upon a cross so that we might have the forgiveness of sins and beatific eternal life?
For are not these greater contraventions of how the universe operates than to bring the cosmos into existence within the span of six literal days?
In Luke 5 in the account where Jesus heals the paralytic lowered through the roof, Christ inquires in verse 23, “Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?”
Thus, if the laws of nature cannot be suspended as the Divinity sees fit, on what grounds ought we to believe that He really has paid our debts in full?
On old adage asks is the Pope Catholic.
Maybe so, but these days it seems that, in terms of his foundational presuppositons, he might be trending Mormon but hopefully with a much less active sex life. By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 04, 2014
In an anti-Halloween sermon, the pastor remarked that any parents that have taught their children about Santa Claus are guilty of having lied. He then remarked how delighted he was of his son for having responded to an inquiry that Santa Claus was a wicked elf from the north. So the moral of that story must be that falsehoods are acceptable then they advance the family theological agendas and pecularitiies.
In a sermon condemning Halloween and nearly all other holidays, the pastor suggested that if you enjoy the accouterments of a particular celebration, you can partake of it at another time of year. As an example, he suggested saving your marshmallow peeps until May or June.
But if you are required to live your life in such a controlled and contrived manner, aren't you still living still beholden to that particular holiday? And more importantly, isn't such an individual still seeking the approval of man rather than God?
In an anti-Halloween sermon, the pastor made the argument that Trick Or Treating was wrong because the custom encourages children to dress up as something they are not and to hoard something that “appeals to the flesh” (that being candy). So in the case of this preacher, it would not be a sin for him to dress as a donkey because he's certainly a dumb you know what.
In a sermon on Halloween, it was claimed that the customs of Halloween are designed to take children away from God at an early age. Couldn't something similar be said about legalistic churches and Christian schools pushing children away from God with too many nitpicky and asinine rules?
The pastor devoted a portion of his assorted tirades exposing that Frosty the Snowman was based on a lie. Who over the age of six believes he is real? Even the History Channel hasn't stooped that low yet. By singing about Frosty, you are no more worshiping Frosty than you would be worshiping Calijah The Wooden Indian or worshiping The Gambler by singing those classic songs.
Particularly unsettling and disturbing were the verbal confessions members of the congregation were expected to engage in order to receive approval and affirmation from the pastors and elders.
One gentleman confided how much he had wanted to celebrate Christmas the previous year but instead submitted himself to the eldership of the church. Buddy, the elders might have say as to whether or not the church building is decorated for Christmas. However, they don't have any say whatsoever as to what you do in your home.
In being prodded further by the leadership as to why he no longer celebrated Christmas, this individual responded because the authority in his life had instructed him as such. At no time did he clarify whether or not by that he meant the Holy Spirit or rather merely those holding position at church. If you are going to relent to pastoral control over your life to such an extent, please for the sake of your family, decide for yourself now if you are going to let the pastor sleep with your wife and molest your kids when he comes asking or drink the sour Kool Aid when he orders it.
Another seeking approval during this protocultic ritual admitted in her confession to tossing out a Fischer Price Nativity set because of the adoration her granddaughter exhibited towards the Baby Jesus figurine. The grandmother reflected, and rightfully so to a certain extent, that often we prefer the adorable Baby Jesus that is not a depiction of the Christ of wrath and judgment.
But shouldn't we be cautious about tossing out the messianic baby with the baptismal water? Isn't there a profound and beautiful truth in God in Christ condescending to our level by becoming one of us?
There are indeed both gentle and wrathful sides to God. And in the spirit of the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is a time and purpose to contemplate each of these under Heaven.
Would it be better to deny this obviously spiritually sensitive and receptive child the tender side of Jesus and instead replace Him only with the hard-edged disciplinarian Jesus that the most thoroughgoing Fundamentalists seem to have a preference for? About the only thing the child is going to retain of this entire encounter is that granny tossed out such a beloved toy or decoration. Her family will no doubt sit around twiddling their thumbs years down the road baffled as to why the child is no longer close to God.
A pastor opposed to the celebration of Christmas remarked that no one that has considered the material he has made available regarding the subject and prayed seriously about the topic has told him that despite these that they will continue celebrating the holiday. The statement was made to promulgate the impression that there is little chance for the true believer to come to any conclusion other than that of this particular pastor.
However, there are at least two other alternatives.
Firstly, the individual believer could have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that there is something more profoundly wrong in that particular congregation than the celebrating of Christmas. Concluding such, they retreat hastily from that particular assembly and flee to another house of worship.
Secondly, they might have considered what the pastor had to say, came to a different conclusion, and felt their was no need to inform the pastor of the decision. Especially in light of those matters where the individual is granted some measure of personalized conviction, it is not really the preacher's business what goes on in your home. If this brand of theology and ecclesiology makes such a fuss over Roman Catholic confession, they can't really then invoke some kind of expectation that you are obligated to blab about everything you do.
In these churches where the congregations don't celebrate Christmas, is it out of a desire to please God or have they been so brainwashed by the pastor that they are afraid of ticking him off?
A pastor can repent of celebrating Christmas as much as he likes. However, it is really not his place to homiletically manipulate and coerce you into doing so.
By Frederick Meekins
Now, on his commercial where he says that he and Gloria Copeland are married forever, does Kenneth Copeland speak rhetorically about this life or has he adopted the Mormon teaching on marriage. Might as well. Sounds like his old pal Pope Francis is adopting a more Mormon understanding of Creation.
Monday, November 03, 2014
A number of conservatives are applauding Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty threatening to break the legs of his granddaughter's boyfriend if he ever hurt her. I hope they would applaud the lad's grandmother threatening to break the legs of the girlfriend is she ever hurt him.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Those claiming to be the direct theological descendents of the Puritans insist that one of the primary reasons that the celebration of Christmas ought to be avoided is because the festival is Roman Catholic in origin. So what if the Roman Catholics propagated a similar message regarding Thanksgiving Day being established by Puritans?
Kirk Cameron Should Tell Those Demanding He Repent Of Halloween To Pilgrimage Through The Exothermic Regions Of The Netherworld
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
The cover story of the 11/10/2014 edition of the Nation is titled “Abortion: No More Apologies. It Is Time To Claim Abortion Rights As A Social Good”. Weren't similar things said at the time in reference to Nazi racial hygiene laws, separate but equal public accommodation, and the reason why American Indians need to be shunted away onto reservations?
The author writes, “In short, a Christianity without hell would be a fearless, trusting, loving, divinely inspired source of good in the world.”
But it must asked, what then is the point?
For if either we all get to Heaven or Heaven is as nonexistent as this mythologized Hell, why bother going out of one's way to consider the claims of the Gospel message or to abide by the basic rigors of Biblical revelation?
As much as these progressives brainwashed to oppose the notion of enlightened are loathe to admit it, there are few motivators greater than an aversion to pain and suffering.
By Frederick Meekins
That is because it is ultimately Christ that delivers the victory.
And does that include maladies that were once considered demonic in origin such as epilepsy or schizophrenia?
It might be the role of the minister to provide prayer in the resolution of these afflictions as well.
But if the cause of the illness lies in the realm of the biologically physiological, does not Christ also work through a physician for the alleviation of that variety of suffering?
By Frederick Meekins
Comments crossing over the line into profanity would not be publicly acceptable.
But isn't there a place for good old fashioned judgment and shame?
This student wasn't caught in his own home crossdressing.
If this behavior is not to be subject to appropriate condemnation, is it really all that wrong to begin with?
How do we know that the lad in question really identifies as a woman or simply had an overwhelming compulsion to view a lush, emerging bosom?
If a boy wiggled his way into the girls changing area for that reason would Christian broadcasters be fumbling all over themselves verbally in regards to a school system that applauded such deviancy?
Yet isn't that lewdness less morally depraved than someone so obsessed with the body of the opposite gender that they are willing to have themselves mutilated in pursuit of such lust?
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Regarding an incident where a breastfeeding mother was photographed in a restaurant. The best way to avoid that is for her to keep her shirt on. Unless in a strip club or a chicken joint, most patrons really don’t care to have breast on display. If it is that urgent to feed the baby, perhaps at that age they need to remain at home.
Nothing in the Bible requires men to fritter away the weekend doing home repairs.
If one is not good at these things, one is not good at these things.
Why isn’t it sufficiently masculine for a man to pay someone else to do this kind of work? Isn’t this why God created Mexicans and Rednecks?
Will those now bemoaning the decline of men with these skills have gonads of sufficient circumference and girth to post a similar article about women these days lacking similar aptitude in the kitchen or in cleaning house?
Most of these wenches aren’t the prize pigs at the fair either.
Monday, October 27, 2014
That is indeed a very valid concern.
If she is that sensitive to the preservation of American freedom and liberties, does she plan to condemn the coercive intervention on the part of the President that resulted in her release?
Administration propagandists insisted that differing quarantine standards between the states could undermine the resolve of medical professionals to volunteer in the effected regions?
But shouldn't the primary concern of both the American medical and governmental policy establishments be the preservation of health and well being here in the “Homeland” (the word invoked to condition silence in response to deviants who should otherwise be on an offender registry when they run their hands over your junk in the airport and when they read through your emails)?
By Frederick Meekins
A number on the panel yammered on about that being statistical evidence of Americans no longer being able to delay gratification.
Where is it written anywhere that Americans are required to enjoy baseball?
Is as much concern expressed on that program about the violation of things that are actually written down such as the Constitution or prohibitions in God's word about marriage being between a man and a woman?
Granted, Fox News does tend towards the right in terms of its commentary programming.
However, the flagship Sunday News broadcast consists of the more establishmentarian analysts that would gladly urge tossing traditional morality overboard if an ethical utilitarianism enables these elites to maintain their hold on power.
By Frederick Meekins
So does that include pastors that can't keep their hands off the teen girls (and shockingly even the teen boys these days) in the congregation?
Since a shockingly high number of these incidents now occur in the ranks of Independent Baptist Churches now that this profound evil has burned its way through the Roman Catholicism, to avoid the appearance of evil and to be separate from these unclean things, does that mean the Christian ought to avoid independent fundamental Baptist churches for the sake of their testimonies as well?
In their annual tirades against Halloween, often aging ministers excuse their past participation in this celebration by insisting that the confectionary collection ritual did not mean back then what it does today.
To justify not only their abstention from the holiday but calling into question the profession of faith of any Christian caught participating as well, often ghastly atrocities that may or may not have actually taken place are elaborated as the sources from which these customs are alleged to have originated.
So unless there has been some kind of chronometric discombobulation where the time stream has become unhinged, even if these ministers are on the declining side of fifty in the their onward perambulation towards the century mark, these pulpiteers are still younger than the evils that they are referencing.
To get around the question that pops into the mind of the discerning of why it was acceptable for the Christian youth of fifty or sixty years ago to Trick Or Treat but a transgression bordering on the unpardonable for the youth of today to participate in the same form of merriment, the geezers at Southwest Radio Ministries concocted a novel but logically questionable justification..
Back when they were wee tots, America was a Judeo-Christian nation.
However, going door to door to collect candy (even if the local preacher doesn't place his hands where he has no business and will land him on an offender registry) will mentally warp the youth of today in these philosophically confused times.
It is still never satisfactorily explained how carving a pumpkin or cavorting about in an amusing but tasteful costume will cause one to apostatize from the faith later down the road.
It seems ministers and clergy that admit to having done one thing still not sounding very repentant about it while demanding another of those under their teaching would be the greater threat of tempting people away from the faith.
It has been suggested that, instead of handing out candy for Halloween, that the Christian should give out Gospel tracts.
But if Halloween in general and Trick Or Treat in particular are so inherently evil, applying this kind of logic to another setting, would placing a gospel tract into an exotic dancer's thong rather than dollar bills justify attendance at a strip club?
By Frederick Meekins
For example, if the one is living in a rundown shack, he's not a "nomadic hunter".
If the another drives a truck to go purchase his goat, he's not really a "primitive woodsman".
The individuals portrayed on Mountain Men seem more authentic and pursuing legitimate backwoods lifestyles.
Even that weird one Eustace is trying to run an historical education complex.
However, the ones on Live Free Or Die just exude the impression that they are a bunch of strung out, doped up beatniks.
A self-loathing Caucasoid has attempted to capitalize on a slice of the racial grievance racket through essays titled “Seven Things I Can Do That My Son Can’t” and “I Hope My Son Stays White”. In these, the author laments the lack of acceptance on the part of the White devils. In summary, he asks why are Black males still feared in White America. Frankly, it’s not the Swedes that have rampaged for months on end in Missouri and threatening more violence if the judicial system does not rubber stamp a predetermined outcome in the Michael Brown case. Perhaps the author should have been more selective with whom he decided to procreate instead of branding everybody as racist that fails to applaud his redistributionist agenda.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
The minister rhetorically asked what was the point of doing so since the person's essence is not there anyway.
It is correct that there in the ground are only the physical remains.
However, Christianity is not Gnosticism.
Unlike that errant belief, Christianity places considerable value upon the body.
What lies there is a tangible connection to the departed loved one.
One must indeed be careful about imbuing these remains with a transferable spiritual energy that they do not possess.
Placing flowers at a grave or visiting the location occasionally extends a degree of respect to the person's memory and, in the mind of the Christian, honors the hope and truth that one day one of the saints dead in Christ will resurrect from that very spot.
Furthermore, for those that practice the custom of placing flowers on the grave, the act is often a way for the individual to cope with what may be overwhelming grief.
But perhaps ministers in Pastor Cooley's circles don't want people to find coping mechanisms.
More than likely, they'd rather people go ahead and descend into mental illness so as not to mess up the sermon rotation for those homilies condemning the depression that sets in for many following the Christmas holiday.
By Frederick Meekins
In the exegesis that followed, the minister expounded that it was nearly a sin to do anything at night other than sleep as if to do so were some kind of mark of evil.
But what if you are a nocturnal type that is more alert at night?
Or what if, no matter what you do, you tend not to sleep the whole night through?
But is the text really so much about the condemnation of any activity at night other than slumber?
Earlier in the passage, the text emphasizes that the Day of the Lord is at hand.
The verses that follow remind the believer that we do not belong to darkness.
There is not much argument that significant carousing takes place while many of the more industrious and diligent are at home resting up for work the next day.
However, from the passage, one could just as legitimately conclude that both sleep and drunkenness are more metaphors for a lack of discernment and awareness.
The drunken could be viewed as those so overwhelmed by the despair of the world that the turn to overwhelming distraction.
The asleep are those that just don't give a tinker's you know what.
From such a comparison, a case could be made that the drunken might be better off because at least they are troubled by some kind of nagging sense that something is not right in the world.
If a pastor is going to position themselves as being so spiritual as to take a hardline position against Halloween, shouldn't they at least be as cautious as to consider the verse of scripture immediately prior to the one they intend to bash over the heads of those that do not agree with their interpretation of certain secondary matters?
I Thessalonians 5:6 counsels, “Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.”
This portion of the epistle under consideration is similar in motif to Christ's parable of the virgins in Matthew 25 that let their lamps go out waiting for the groom to arrive at the marriage feast.
If the passage is to be utilized to condemn Halloween on the grounds that it prompts people to participate in nocturnal activities other than slumber, shouldn't the next sermon in the series aim its condemnation at the mattress or pillow industry for abetting recuperative unconsciousness?
For in the passage, sleep is not portrayed all that positively either.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Yet this individual can afford a $30,000 SUV and a $10,000 loan that went primarily to provide his wench with a wedding or engagement ring.
The couple, despite apparently considering nutritional assistance, can apparently afford an Iphone 6 when there was nothing wrong with the cellphone that they already have.
Out of curiosity, I researched the WIC requirements for the state in which the couple resides.
Two of the criteria are interesting.
One allows for a new mom with a child up to six months of age.
Another criteria allows for mothers breastfeeding infants up to a year old.
One might make a case to extend this program to the mom while she is pregnant or is breastfeeding.
However, as soon as the whelp shoots from the birth canal of a mother that does not intend to breastfeed, there is no need to continue this nutritional assistance to her.
For the baby is not directly dependent upon her for nourishment as in the other examples that might justify the entitlement program.
Why not go ahead and provide the father with food for his own consumption as well?
He is, after all, the one that is traditionally still actually going to work while the mom is loafing about on maternity leave.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
A documentary about the band Hillsong scheduled to be shown in theaters assures that the musicians have not been changed by the world. Given than the musicians depicted in the trailer look like beatnik slobs to begin with, they were probably already living like the world to begin with.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
It was then remarked you can either die at the hands of ISIS or from Ebola, so you might as well have a positive attitude about it.
Do those making such statements in a religious frenzy actually stop to consider how it is to perish as a result of such necrotic modalities?
Regarding the concern Christians often express regarding death.
Why are we at fault regarding the survival instinct God has imbued into nearly every form of life?
Furthermore, if Scripture says that those that hate God love death, wouldn't it therefore follow that as the most correct religion that Christians would be the most averse to this disputed metabolic state?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, October 17, 2014
The President went on to clarify, “There should be no tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm innocents.”
The President suggested that this could be accomplished in part by composing a “new compact...to eradicate the corruption of young minds by violent ideology” and by “contesting the space that terrorists occupy --- including the Internet and social media.”
Such proposed policies sounds like a prudent course of action to take against those out to destroy the American way of life.
But in deciphering the double talk that spews from the mouths of political elites like phlegm during flu season, the discerning grow concerned as to whether or not such rhetorical pronouncements will only be used against the jhadist menace.
Given the President's fundamental ideological orientation as a socialistic secularist, what safeguards are to be put in place that these strategies won't be used against Americans of a conservative Evangelical or Roman Catholic persuasion?
For example, when the average American hears Obama insist that no child anywhere should be taught to hate other people, images of toddlers and preschoolers being indoctrinated by a giant plushy mouse as to the glories of not only killing Christians and Jews but of their own suicide martyrdoms.
However, in the eyes of the crowd that Obama runs with, propagating hate can consist of little more than publicly reading those passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality or peacefully insisting that professing belief in Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.
In fact, columnist Mark Steyn was dragged before a Canadian human rights tribunal for remarks not too much more rhetorically forceful than those made by Obama on the floor of the United Nations by simply exposing what jihadists had themselves articulated.
Obama suggested that different faiths should come together to speak out against this violent worldview.
It depends upon what the President means by that.
Fine and dandy if he means a respect for human decency being enunciated individually from behind each pulpit in a wide variety of houses of worship.
However, if the President is suggesting that widely diverging faiths are obligated to open their pulpits to one another free of doctrinal criticism as to where these guests measure up and fall theologically short, the government will have taken a step one too many to the point where its agencies will likely become the next great threat to our own liberties and well being once the identifiable terrorist menace has been identified and appropriately dispatched.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 16, 2014
He ruminated that it might be the only time that these magistrates might be exposed to a nonlegalistic version of Christianity.
But is it really the proper function of civil authorities to deploy its policing powers to penalize doctrinal expression that has not veered beyond the boundaries of verbalization into the territory of physical or financial abuse?
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Among the articles is one titled “The Whitest Men: We Talk To Four Unexceptional Party Leaders”.
Since this is a British magazine, of course leaders in that European nation that climb a conventional career ladder aren't going to be as exciting as the Nigerians there that select a solider at random to decapitate in the middle of the street to make a political point.
If this same periodical had published a similar edition with a caricature of the hook-nosed Jew from Nazi propaganda or something similar emphasizing the fiendishly exaggerated features of the typical Islamist, wouldn't these editors have violated some kind of hate speech regulations?
Broadcaster Michael Savage was banned from entering the United Kingdom altogether for simply highlighting the threats posed by assorted manifestations of multiculturalism to borders, language, and culture.
By Frederick Meekins
But in the world in which we live, shouldn't that instruction be conditioned to apply only to minor everyday slights?
For example, should a wife say, “My husband only backhands me once in a while, but he certainly buys me pretty things.”
Should the husband say, “I might have caught her in the backyard next door squirming around in the neighbor's lap, but I should just be satisfied because she's the only woman that would consider marrying me.”
And what about church?
Should it be said, “Well, pastor might skim off the collection plate when he thinks no one is looking and, sure, he cops a feel of the teen girls occasionally, but boy can he preach a sermon condemning nearly every last aspect of the contemporary world and how we ought to avoid contact with any church that doesn't embrace our doctrinal peculiarities in their unaltered totality.”
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
In other words, it is her own expletive fault.
So does the government's medical establishment enunciate the same flippant dismissiveness regarding those that contract sexually transmitted diseases?
Eventually, Friedan did apologize for his remarks.
But if a public health functionary would still need to be punished for verbalizing such sentiments in reference to certain celebrated lifestyles, then why not in this particular instance where a dedicated individual was attempting to assist the suffering and afflicted rather than satisfying some carnal desire?
It was pointed out on Hannity that 900,000 Africans could perish in the Ebola epidemic.
This will undoubtedly rank among the great disasters of the 21st century.
The bubonic plague was one of the events demarcating the close of the Middle Ages and the commencement of the Modern Era?
Likewise, are we witnessing the close of this epoch even apart from any eschatological considerations. How much of the present order will be left standing this time next year?
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 13, 2014
An 81 year old British deviant has undergone genital mutilation in the attempt to coerce and dupe the linguistically weak to refer to him as a woman. Mind you, under the same British healthcare system, bureaucrats would probably deny prostate surgery to a man of the same age afflicted with cancer of that particular organ.
Filling in for Chris Plante on WMAL, Austin Hill said that in reference to the jihadist threat that he hopes America can peel itself away from ESPN and The Voice.
So does that mean Americans must dedicate themselves around the clock to politics?
If so, how is this totalization on the right where all resources must be directed by the elites of he cause all that preferable to the revolutionary austerity called for by leftists ideologues.
Decades ago, even soldiers on the frontlines got a Bob Hope USO show with broads in highheels and skimpy (for the time) swimsuits.
By Frederick Meekins
Firstly, these indigenous people are no more native to these lands than the Whitey interloper or technically they would not be part of the same human species.
There is no better way to remember and honor the sacrifices of this people group than by barring travelers from other regions with diseases to which there is little immunity that can wipe out entire cultures and civilizations.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
But so are some that have to be in church every time the door swings open even if they aren't on the payroll.
To a number, it is merely a creative outlet.
I guess opponents would rather a number of these artists instead descend into mental illness so they can be reamed for that from the pulpit as well.
The article opens by pointing out the number of Japanese young adults that have turned to this form of recreation who hold low-paying contract jobs.
Shouldn't the emphasis be on low paying jobs?
It seems these individuals are working.
And so long as they are not on public assistance as they pursue this hobby, is this really anyone's business?
Unlike the analyst posting this article, not everyone can land a prestigious gig at the American Enterprise Institute.
As was emphasized on the Syfy Channel series Heroes Of Cosplay, often participants pursue this hobby as a way to network into the highly competitive fields of theatrical costume design and even the video game industry.
So in that sense, how is what they do any different than someone that dedicates an inordinate amount of time in pursuit of Olympic gold?
In a state that wallows in its embrace of diversity, who is to say what ideas belong there? More importantly, how would this be policed?
The statement goes to a level much more profound than electoral politics.
In all likelihood, Larry Hogan will continue to reside in the jurisdiction (and thus his ideas) even if he loses the election.
What if a similar advertisement was broadcast promulgating nearly the same perspective insisting the proponents of gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, and radical Islam were not welcome in the state of Maryland either?
Thursday, October 09, 2014
Panetta did not take an oath to the President.
A president is only owed loyalty if a president is loyal to his own oath of office.
It has been insisted that Panetta should have kept his concerns to himself until Obama left office.
Would the same ones applaud Rommel for having ignored what his Christian conscience was telling him about Hitler's moral failings and evils?
Wednesday, October 08, 2014
According to the 10/15/2014 issue of the Christian Century, a coalition of religious leftists is launching a campaign to encourage voter registration in low income and immigrant communities.
In other words, populations likely to elect candidates more likely to promise the largest handout payments.
This mobilization effort plans to organize under the banner of Let My People Vote.
Mind you, these are likely the very same agitators insisting that the pro-life, pro-family, and pro-American policy preferences of Religious Right organizations such as Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition cheapen the cause of the Gospel.
In his analysis, he pointed out that the virus can be spread through the fruit bat, which a number of Africans consume as part of their native cuisine.
Crismier interjected that such a practice is not Biblical.
If the apologist is insisting that Old Testament dietary regulations are binding upon New Testament non-Jewish believers, he is not correct.
In Matthew 15:11, Christ Himself counsels that an individual is not defiled by what goes into one's mouth but rather by what comes out of the elocutionary orifice.
This New Testament alteration of the Old Testament law seems to be sustained by a number of other passages.
In I Timothy 4:4, the Apostle Paul asserts that ALL foods (not just the list of Mosaic kosher foods) can be enjoyed with thanksgiving.
To clarify that God was the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles, in Acts 10 Peter was instructed to eat from a selection of foods that up until that point that he had been conditioned to avoid as unclean.
God would not have compelled Peter to do something that was still a violation of God's law.
It's not like Peter was told to marry a man or to offer worship up towards a false god.
It is a correct observation that very few Americans would want to eat a bat.
However, is Chuck Crismier going to insist that he has never eaten or since repented of partaking of crab, shrimp, or lobster which are also forbidden under Old Testament dietary guidelines since these creatures are essentially underwater coach roaches?
Likewise, if Chuck Crismier believes this strongly about strict adherence to the Mosaic law in its entirety, does he intend to broadcast an episode of his Viewpoint news and cultural analysis program condemning the Duck Dynasty clan for the consumption of yet another food clearly forbidden in the pages of Old Testament revelation?
And what about the fast food industry such as Burger King and McDonald's?
A common complaint among certain factions of the more doctrinally enthusiastic is that contemporary Evangelicals are insufficiently Hebraic in their approach to the interpretation and application of Scripture.
So if Africans are to be condemned for consuming bats which might be one of the very few food items available to such impoverished populations, does one have to be consistent and declare an all out crusade against the All American cheeseburger?
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Some comedy bit on Rush Limbaugh mocked young adults still living with their parents. Will their also be one mocking those married four times with none of the marriages ending in the death of the spouse, those being so addicted to painkillers that it blows out their ears, or getting caught returning from the Third World with Viagra in someone else's name when you claim to be more chaste than the Pope?
Would An Ebola Patient With A Temperature Below 101 Be Allowed To Sit Next To Queen Sasquatch On Air Force 1?
Walmart plans to eliminate health insurance coverage for its part time employees. I told you that was why years ago the corporation produced a commercial featuring aspiring thespians with a vacant brainwashed gaze to their visages articulating how much they supported the healthcare reform act on behalf of all Americans.
Monday, October 06, 2014
Sunday, October 05, 2014
A Facebook meme attributed to Southern Baptist International Missions Board president David Platt is quoted as saying the following: “Accept him? Do we really think Jesus needs our acceptance? Don't we need Him? Jesus is no longer one to be accepted or invited in but one who is infinitely worthy of our immediate and total surrender.”
Is there really a reason to get one's backside up on one's shoulders over a pastor or evangelist that phrases the soteriological appeal in terms of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?
Granted, as part of the infinite triune Godhead, Jesus can hobble along quite fine without us no matter how much Pastor Platt believes world missions might collapse without his particular brand of religious over-enthusiasm.
What it simply means when someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior is that the person assents to the truth and validity of the claims and conditions made in the Gospels.
What is interesting is Rev. Platt's phraseology of immediate and total surrender.
Traditionally, that is what occurs when the sincere individual comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, meaning one makes a concerted effort with the help of the Holy Spirit to resist those more sinful desires.
However, what Platt may mean by that, given the perspective taken in a number of his books such as “Radical” and his sermons available on sites such as Youtube, is a bit different.
To Platt, it is not so much that your life and possessions are Christ's to determine directly how these are to be used to His glory but rather that is to be determined by your betters up the ecclesiastical food chain.
According to sermons from the likes of Rev. Platt, in taking up your cross, it is not sufficient to endure a particular struggle or trial that has come into your life but rather that you are to think of yourself as on the way to execution in terms that you are supposed to be wracked with profound guilt for a standard of living above that of the subsistence level.
However, religious superstars such as David Platt are to enjoy a semi-luxurious lifestyle flying across the country and around the globe having accolades and wads of cash tossed in their direction over how wonderful they are for being outraged that you have what you have.
Christ Himself says in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”
The text does not say that Jesus will beat down the door.
Customarily, when someone knocks at the door, it is your right to either open the door to invite them into your dwelling or to decline their request along with whatever it is they might be happening to bring you.
But then again, we are in the age where apparently the theological celebrities know more than Christ ever did.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, October 03, 2014
Thursday, October 02, 2014
To this, the podcaster interviewing Pastor Cooley remarked that he knew there was a reason why he did not like cats.
Pastor Cooley concurred with an “Amen.”
But who is it that created cats?
Surely it was not Satan.
Was it not the God that we are supposed to be so dedicated to that we can't even participate in a festival that does not possess any meaning for most other than dressing up in a silly costume to collect candy from door to door?
Cats are not inherently evil.
That is merely the connotation they have been imbued with from a cultural and literary standpoint derived from subjective existential or psychological sources.
In other words, from nothing more than what someone happened to think or feel regarding them.
Should something be abandoned because a number construe a conceptual or ontological category to be evil rather than it actually being so?
So does this include Fundamentalist Baptist Churches?
For years, that form of ecclesiology's most ardent adherents rightly condemned the pedophile scandals that wracked the Roman Catholic Church.
However, it turns out that nearly the same perversion had gripped a number of hardline Independent Fundamentalist ministries.
Therefore, isn't it logical to contend that there have been more innocent people hurt in a spirit of appalling wanton sin perpetrated by those that should have known better than were ever hurt by cats exhibiting a similar degree of deliberate malice?
So does that mean we should refrain from attendance at these particular houses of worship to avoid offending the weaker brother?
Often, the conspicuously pious will homiletically insist that Halloween ought to be avoided altogether not so much to refrain from actual wrongdoing but to avoid the appearance of such and out of the necessity to separate from unclean things as counseled by Scripture.
As such, shouldn't we also consider the source of this sentiment against cats if the propriety or impropriety of a thing is to be determined not so much by how it is practiced today but rather by ideas affiliated with it at the time a custom came into existence?
By the pastor's own admission, this particular prejudice is supposedly Druid in origin.
Thus, if we are to severe all connections with Halloween for being pagan in origin, why not this unfounded contempt for felines as well?
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 01, 2014
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Monday, September 29, 2014
Friday, September 26, 2014
If a woman wants to wear such an outfit, that might be her business.
However, isn't the more pressing issue at hand the women being forced to wear these getups in areas where the particular form of extremeism such garments exemplify is on the rise?
Is one to conclude that the jihadists that hacked off the breasts of Christian women were instead simply trying to liberate these women from body dysmorphic disorder?
Regarding adherents of this creed that parade about in full heathen regalia to the extent that even their faces are concealed.
What assurances does an instructor in an academic setting have that it's the same student that shows up everyday adorned in such a potentially deceptive manner.
What if a member of the Ku Klux Klan showed up making their daily rounds in public in complete costume?
Tolerancemongers will insist what the Klansman is doing is intended to excite a spirit of fear and express hatred.
But so is the Mohammedan.
For such ensembles are not donned so much out of sincere religious devotion but out of contempt for our liberties that allow such imbeciles to cavort about without opposition or even question.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
It might be one thing to light a candle on behalf of his memory as a human being.
However, if he had not met his parting from this world in a manner that could be exploited to further assorted politically correct agendas, would this church have lit a candle for him?
Given that his church is located in the Washington/Baltimore corridor with its own disturbingly high rate of homicide, does this church post photos of candles lit on behalf of other murder victims explicitly by name?
Tagged on to the name of Michael Brown is mention of “our work to end racism”.
There is really no proof that the Michael Brown incident had anything to do with racism.
The foremost examples of racism involved surrounding this issue were of those that rampaged in the streets of Ferguson.
Does this Nazarene church intend to post candles lit beseeching divine protection for the shopkeeper brutalized by Michael Brown in the last hour of his life and the owners of the property pillaged by his supporters?
Or has the Church of the Nazarene been so given over to the social gospel embraced by much of the Emergent Church to the extent that the leadership of this particular congregation contends that property owners get whatever they deserve at the hands of the allegedly disadvantaged?
By Frederick Meekins
Are Militant Secularists Attempting To Remove All Mentions Of Christianity From The Literary Record?
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Monday, September 22, 2014
A pastor mentioned that, during Puritan times, if someone in the congregation nodded off during the sermon, the somnolent could be whacked by a roving usher. The pastor joked that perhaps we should return to our heritage. If one is to hold to the sola scruiptura of rigorous Protestantism, in what passage is such a use of force called for? How about pastors introducing or suggesting ideas nowhere called for in the pages of the Bible being beaten with a rod?
Where does it say if you are committing a sin when Jesus returns that you will be punished for that throughout all of eternity if you otherwise embrace Christ as Lord and Savior? And why is that moment any different than at the moment of a traditional death? What if you see a car barreling towards you and the moment before you die you shout “HOLY SH-T”? Even Paul admitted that he did that which he did not want to do.
A pastor remarked that there is no greater service than Christian service. The pastor than limited Christian service to those instances where one directly shared the Gospel. But given that we are not solely spiritual beings, shouldn't service intending to meet these other needs if those are the specific fields one has been called to address as one's vocation also be considered Christian service? Do you really want a Christian fireman to be exegeting the Scriptures to you when he should be putting out your house fire? Wasn't one of Protestantism's initial goals to correct this kind of errant perspective that had crept into medieval Christianity?
However, if a relationship begins to progress beyond the stages of merely going out casually, especially if the person claims to never have been married before, aren't you entitled to know more about this aspect of an individual's character?
Why shouldn't someone that has lived a morally chaste life be able to decide for themselves based on all of the available information if they are willing to settle for soiled goods? Jesus does indeed forgive.
However, His record really isn't all that impressive in preventing the spread of the AIDS virus or other related diseases.
Are we to also avoid questions about other important issues such as previous marital status or doctrinal preferences in ascertaining the suitability of a potential mate?
According to this logic, one is suppose to accept being saddled in a relationship with a Baptist that has been a total whore rather than a Catholic or a Holy Roller that has kept their pants on and their legs together. > Interesting how a sense of forgiveness or whatever one wants to call it should be so blind and stupid regarding one particular sin but if one decides to marry someone that is honest about a divorce about the only thing you will be allowed to do in some of these hardline churches is to empty your wallet into the collection plate.
by Frederick Meekins
Given the standard Obama applies to the border, shouldn’t OMAR GONZALEZ (an Irish or Nordic name if there ever was one) now be allowed to remain in the White House once he got in? He merely wanted to enjoy the nice things there. Isn’t it RACIST to deny him that opportunity.
Radio news intoned we are not supposed to drive automobiles on Car Free Day. So because some authority body tells us to do something, we are obligated to comply just because they say so? Does this include throwing bricks and stones through the windows of Jewish owned businesses?
Sunday, September 21, 2014
A Harvard University Press biography of Billy Graham claims that, if the world's most famous Baptist had his life to live over again, he would consider becoming an evangelical Anglican.
Such a spiritual and ecclesiastical path would have a number of things to commend it.
Foremostly, to be baptized into such a church, one would not necessarily have to be dunked underwater.
Anglicans also accept sprinkling and pouring as appropriate modalities of this primary Christian rite.
To Baptists, it is immersion or nothing at all.
Though identifying as Protestant and distinct from Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism is not so hostile to the other form of Western Christianity so as to forsake that which it is still capable of teaching the believer despite the shortcomings that have taken root in that particular theological expression over the centuries.
Some Baptists, on the other hand, are energized by little more than just how much they can stick it in the eye of the Church of Rome.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Friday, September 19, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty has enunciated more than his dislike of homosexuals. He has also made known his disapproval of fat kids, city dwellers, men that like cats, and females not married by the age of 15. In one episode, his wife insinuated that it is inappropriate for unmarried couples to hold hands. Wonder if they will make similarly doctrinaire statements regarding their granddaughter shaking her backside in a skimpy outfit on national TV. Or, as “Christian leaders”, do they get the customary exemption from the standards we non-celebrities are expected to adhere to.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Will he be suspended from his broadcasting duties like the correspondent that simply asked why Janay Rice would deliberately marry a known domestic abuser?
Will Black media personalities insisting that the beating of their youth by parents is just the way things are done down South insist that Paula Deen's fortune be restored because what she said in the privacy of her own home to her husband that resulted in no bodily injury is just the way things were done down South?
Since it was the way things use to be done, are those applauding the beating of a four year old to the point of bodily injury going to also tell us that it's also appropriate to deny children wholesome affection such as hugs or that to lavish attention and resources on one child to the point of neglecting other less desirable children in a family for no legitimate reason is acceptable.
Those kinds of things use to go on as well.
According to former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, the propriety of a parental action such as a beating is to be determined by the pile of money or status that accrues to the recipient of such tactilely intensive correction.
If Adrian Peterson has approximately seven children by near as many women none of which he is married to, there has obviously been some kind of shortcoming or breakdown in the parental process somewhere.
Adrian Peterson's methods of discipline are being justified or overlooked on the grounds that that was the way things were always done.
Peterson is estimated to have fathered seven children.
He refuses to disclose the answer to this question himself definitively.
Nor does it sound like he is married to any of the mothers.
In those heralded golden days of yore invoked to justify the bruising of a four year old, didn't you usually get married before procreating that prodigiously?
Perhaps we should hold off a bit before lavishing this reprobate with father of the year accolades as some in certain conservative circles seem eager to bestow upon him.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
As an example, Pastor Platt praised John Bunyan who was tossed into prison for refusing to stop preaching when ordered to by Anglican authorities despite the hardship endured by his family in general and his blind child in particular.
The Christian should not deny Christ.
However, Bunyan was initially imprisoned for preaching without a license.
Whether we agree with that or not is a secondary matter.
Often in a fallen world, the situations are so bad that the individual is forced to prioritize from a list of less than ideal options.
From the Wikipedia entry on John Bunyan, one gets the impression authorities were not initially inclined to imprison Bunyan until he blurted out that he'd be out preaching again the next day.
That causes one to ponder was it necessarily Christ that Bunyan was infatuated with or the adrenaline rush one can get from a good fight.
I Timothy 5:8 admonishes that those that do not take care of their own family are worse than an infidel.
The same ones praising John Bunyan for in their minds putting Christ in a proper place above the needs of his family would turn around and heap condemnation upon others for not taking care of the Bunyan urchins.
However, shouldn't taking care of the spiritual and physical needs of these children have been the foremost life's mission of the Bunyan parents?
Why couldn't have Bunyan been as an upstanding Christian example ministering to the needs of his ailing child and instead return to spreading the Gospel to others behind the back of authorities at a later time?
Jesus did indeed counsel that the believer's love of family should look like hate in comparison to that for Him.
However, the most profound expression of devotion to Christ may be in loving our family members in those times we feel like loving them the least or get distracted by a cause we deem much more exciting than the mundane duties of this world.
By Frederick Meekins
Ohio State Consent Regulations Requires Man To Articulate Why He Wants To Insert His Penis Into Vaginia, Lick A Bosom, Or Spank A Backside
Chinese Students Taught How To Take Down Superpowers While American Students Taught To Use Plastic Weiners
Monday, September 15, 2014
Rather he argued against it from the standpoint of the Reformed belief against the impropriety of man authorizing holy days not found in Scripture.
In this homily, he seemed to praise and certainly did not criticize Scottish authorities at the time of the Reformation that forbade under penalty of law those celebrating such commemorations after Presbyterianism became that nation's established church.
However, if man does not have the authority to compel extra-biblical holy days, on what grounds does one then forbid an individual from incorporating these practices as part of their individual devotion after they have been informed that observation of the day is not necessarily a requirement?
For does not Romans 14:5-6 seem to indicate that these sorts of matters are more in the realm of individual conscience?
In a sermon against Halloween, Presbyterian Brian Schwertly described a prank he use to engage in during that particular time of year where he would light a bag of, in his words, “poop” on fire and leave it on someone's porch.
Instead of remorsefully recounting this story in a tone of repentance, he actually laughed about it.
If Halloween really is as evil as the hardline Fundamentalists make it out to be, wouldn't that be the equivalent of fondly recalling before the congregation how Buffy down at the gentleman's club would twirl as she was giving him a lap dance?
Wouldn't an ultalegalist such as himself consider a person exhibiting such glee in the House of God insufficiently contrite?
Yes, he should be classified as an ultralegalist as he insinuated at another point in the sermon series that Roman Catholics and Arminians should be denied citizenship in the idealized Christian Reconstructionist regime.
In the sermon “Halloween: A Biblical Critique Of James Jordin & American Vision, Part 2”, Brian Schwertly examined the argument that Christian participation in Halloween is valid and legitimate as a way of ridiculing the power of Satan.
Schwertly contends that such a perspective is inappropriate in light of Jude 1:9 in which it is suggested that even the mightiest of angels are cautious about underestimating the Old Deluder.
However, it has been suggested that often conceptualizing of evil in a literary or narrative form similar to a fairy tale can assist the young in placing these kinds of fears and terrors in a proper perspective.
Why can't the symbology of Halloween play a similar kind of role?
But more importantly, perhaps the argument about justifying Halloween as a way of minimizing Satan's influence through good old fashioned ridicule came about as a result of the need in some of the more rigorous wings of Evangelicalism to always find itself in an “on position” in terms of some grand outreach effort or engaged in some never-ending confrontation.
Can't a kid just go out for a night dressed in costume to collect some candy without it being as if the Apocalypse was looming or the fate of the world hanging in the balance?
By Frederick Meekins