Tuesday, April 15, 2014
It was mentioned in a Baptist podcast that just because someone participates in their church’s door to door soul winning outreach that the person has not necessarily made evangelism part of their life. Fair enough. However, in this day and age, is even approaching total strangers in such a manner the best way of going about it? As a general policy, I don’t open the door to anyone I don’t know. And when a stranger approaches with an unsolicited soteriological interrogatory, shouldn’t one be cautious as to what potential cult group the individual is shilling for?
A Baptist podcast sneered down its nose about youth that step forward insisting that they have a “call to missions”. What do they expect to happen when often this is about the only career students in Christian education will be propagandized about and beaten over the head with from nearly the first day of school when they start diagramming Bible verses in their ACE workbooks.
Independent Baptists discussing characteristics they look for in candidates for assorted ministry candidates is a person willing to be defrauded and not make a fuss about it. That one is especially no doubt helpful in the case of girls between the ages of 15 and 18 to keep quite about that “indiscretion”, lonely housewives with low self-esteem, and the elderly couple with the hefty bank account.
Regarding the Independent Baptists that insist that the only route into ministry is through jumping through the hurdles that they have set up. What is to prevent the disaffected from hoeing their own path? Protestants of every stripe (especially Baptists) can’t very well complain about it when that process pretty much describes their own origins in the annals of ecclesiology. Granted, establishment institutions are perfectly free to deny funding to upstarts operating outside the controlled systems. However, with the proliferation of Internet technologies such as social media, self-publishing, and digital recording, are such ossified channels all that essential in propagating a message any longer?
In a discussion on the nature of missions, it was remarked that an individual pursuing ministry should not be allowed to begin careers in such without having preached before the same people hundreds of times. And Bible college classes did not count because those engaged in the dialogue downplayed and poopooed the idea of education beyond that overseen by the local church. Given that pastors shouldn’t give up their pulpits that often if they desire to retain both position and salary, where exactly is anyone suppose to gain such a daunting amount of experience? Was such ever required of those imposing this arbitrary qualification? Sounds more like protecting the guild for the sake of the guild rather than the quality of the craft.
According to a sermon on the nature of missions, one is not called to preach unless validated by the people of God. So does that prove that Joel Osteen is “more called” to preach in his second hand professional basketball stadium than a pastor of a rundown store front church or someone that posts material online?
So if certain Baptists are going to insist that the call for one’s life is validated by the church institutional, does that invalidate the ministry of Martin Luther? If you are going to start making these kinds of claims, you had better parse them out rather that wallow in that warm feeling in your gut you confuse for piety.
With Pulitzer Prizes being dispensed over the story, it has been asked should journalists reporting the details of the documents revealed by Edward Snowden should themselves be held criminally responsible. Should William Lloyd Garrison or Harriet Beecher Stowe be condemned by history for exposing the deprivations of slavery? Should any Nazi brutality to keep news of the Holocaust hidden be applauded? On the drama series, “The 100” was the station council justified in tossing out of the airlock those wanting warn of the pending systems failure?
The accused gunman of the Jewish community center in Kansas is claimed to be a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and alleged to have called his wife from a casino sometime prior to the incident. Say what you will about the moral impropriety of each of these activities. However, one must admit that both are considerably social in nature, requiring a significant degree of human interaction.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Legalistic Baptist Seminarian Condemns Those WIth Pets Rather Than Children As Lacking A Christian Worldview
Saw it posted of Twitter: "Yes, we will lose some good patriots but we can make them heroes if we stick together folks! " Of course, those usually saying such merely egg on sort of like the Jihadist leaders that drone on how much they have sacrificed for the conflict by urging other's people children to blow themselves up why they themselves live to a ripe old age.
Those of a more bookish or scholarly inclination got to enjoy a similar kind of excitement just a few days later when they could pick sides as evangelist Ken Ham faced off against Bill Nye the Science Guy.
The issue at hand was whether evolution is sufficient to account for the existence of life.
Ken Ham, on the one hand, believes that, without appealing to a literal understanding of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis, all of the foundations upon which intellectual comprehension and a just social order rest begin to break down.
As an avowed Humanist (having been recognized as the 2010 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association), Bill Nye believes that the processes of the material universe are comprehensive enough in themselves to account for the complexity of the reality in which we find ourselves.
Granted, there are a number of assorted positions between these two poles. Salvation is not determined by disbelief in Charles Darwin's theories but rather in one's belief in the finished work of Christ upon the cross of Calvary. After all, it can be argued that God has a special place in His heart for the dimwitted.
Interestingly, some of the most scathing criticisms directed towards Ken Ham did not necessarily come from the raving village atheists but more from those that would consider themselves Ham's fellow believers. Foremost among them was none other than Pat Robertson.
Instead of commending Ham for the courage to take a principled Christian stand on one of the foremost issues facing the faith in the contemporary era, Robertson counseled, “Let's not make a joke of ourselves.” Apparently he comes down on the side of the debate holding to some kind of theistic evolution or progressive creationism.
It would not be gentlemanly to deny the validity of the faith in Christ of those holding to such a position. However, the perspective holds that God is not powerful enough or is too stupid to create the world in seven literal standard “Earth days” as detailed in the Book of Genesis.
Put that aside for now. But “Let's not make a joke out of ourselves” is a ship that sailed from Robertson's Virginia Beach compound years and even decades ago. But then again, maybe it flew off in a jet taking off from Robertson's private airplane runway or road off on one of this thoroughbred horses all the while Robertson insists global warming is the result of we mere common folks having too much such as automobiles powered by internal combustion engines.
One would think that Pat Robertson might show a little more compassion or understanding to those that say controversial things but which contain considerable truth after they have been reflected upon. After all, was not Robertson the one that pointed out that the true danger of leftwing feminism was that it would encourage woman to kill their babies, take up witchcraft, and become lesbians?
Robertson's whacked out remarks go beyond any of Ham's claims no matter how ludicrous the assertions of the Australian evangelist sound to those building their epistemological house foremostly upon man's reason.
For example, Robertson claims that, if it weren't for the prayers offered by his ministry, the Tidewater area of Virginia would have already been destroyed as a result of an oncoming hurricane. And this was one of Robertson's less shocking flubs, with others going so far beyond Scriptural propriety to actually violate divine mandates.
For example, Robertson suggested that a spouse ought to go ahead and divorce a partner suffering from Alzheimer's. The suggestion was made not as some strategy to secure additional insurance or social welfare in a broken system that penalizes loving couples trying to live properly. Rather, Robertson made the comment so that the healthy spouse could dump the ailing partner in order to find someone else to frolic in the boudoir with.
The Bible establishes that marriage is intended to be a life long arrangement to dissolve upon the death of one of the involved parties. That is why in the marriage vows that the promises are for better or for worse, and in sickness and in health until death do they part.
Who wouldn't rather spend one's declining years (often euphemistically referred to as “golden”) puttering around a Florida retirement community in a golf cart. However, shouldn't one strive to stand by the promise made years ago? It's not like the mate with dementia set out intentionally to lose a lifetime of memories and to complete life as a proverbial vegetable.
Yet these claims made by Robertson on different occasions regarding difficult questions over which sincere believers trying to decipher God's will can disagree are not necessarily the worst of Robertson's shenanigans.
On many Christian television programs, prayer is a regular featured element. In most Christian traditions, prayer occurs when the believer directs communication --- either spontaneous or fabricated --- directly to the triune Godhead.
If most Christian leaders are sincere, they will admit that this communication usually flows in one direction in the audible sense. If some want to insist that the communication or communion can be felt by the parties at either end of this direct line into the noumenal, those that should be spared additional psychological evaluation will admit that what they experience is more akin to a sense of peace and well being that may come over them as they reflect upon the grandeur and power of the Heavenly Father in comparison to what ever burden they are bringing to Him to lay at the foot of the Cross.
If some public religious figure tells you that God TOLD this leader to pursue a particular course of action, the best thing to do is to RUN away as soon as possible. For eventually, the thing that such figures usually insist the Almighty is telling them to do is either sleep with YOUR spouse or to force you to drink the funny-smelling Kool Aid.
Robertson takes his own version of the divine dialog over the boundaries of acceptability in its own particular fashion. The televangelist insists he receives direct replies back from God.
Referring to this beatific telepathy as a “word of faith”, Robertson insists that the Holy Spirit is conveying back to him and a few select minions what amount to press releases regarding these movings in mysterious ways. Usually these are healings that are supposedly taking place at the time the ritual is conducted.
The thing of it is is that these revelations seldom ever happen to be very specific in terms of names and locations. Robertson and his minions insist they see somewhere out in the viewing audience someone being healed of a non-descriptive back pain or stomach ailment.
One would think that if the Holy Spirit deemed it important enough to inform Robertson of these miraculous interventions, the third person of the Trinity would also provide the address of the person being healed. After all, if this was all on the up and up, you think that might be good in terms of professions of faith, ratings, and (of course) the bottom line.
Such a scatterbrained approach no doubt helps Robertson cover his backside. By keeping these claims of precognition or telepathy intentionally vague, the likelihood is increased that at least occasionally some individual will step forward claiming that they were the one that Robertson was talking about.
Ken Ham, on the other hand, is more on the up and up. Even if one does not agree with his conclusions, at least the claims of creationist theory are made on the basis of a logical or evidential methodology that the skeptical can attempt to disprove or refute.
About all we have from Robertson is the claim that God blows in his ear. That isn't really all that much different than what Jim Jones and David Koresh use to say.
Scripture declares that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But in comparing their overall ministries, the antics of Pat Robertson have brought far greater embarrassment to the cause of Christ than the labors of Ken Ham ever have or likely ever will.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, April 11, 2014
Pensacola Christian College Deems Remaining In Assigned Chapel Seat More Important Than Protecting From Rapist Stalker
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Clinton Insists That FEDERAL Social Security Cards Requiring Photos Aren't Tyrannical But Requiring STATE ID's To Vote Apparently Is
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
If a Mozilla executive can be dismissed or forced to step down for giving a donation to an organization opposed to gay marriage, what is to prevent similar actions from being taken to remove someone from a position if it is learned that they attend a church opposed to this debauchery?
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
The evidence provided was that this particular expositor did not believe that there are horses in Heaven.
Unless the speaker can provide irrefutable proof that they have been to Heaven, on what grounds do they have to make such an absolute categorical statement?
Granted, the horse is not likely one that has already trod this Earth before such as Trigger, Mr. Ed, or Flicka.
However, it could be a horse that hails entirely from the celestial realm.
If horses existing in Heaven are beyond credibility, why should we believe other passages regarding what is suppose to be the ultimate home of the Christian?
Perhaps the Pearly Gates aren’t so pearly since a pearl is essentially ossified oyster spit.
If it is beyond the realm of possibility for a non-human or non-angelic life form to exist in the beatific realm, why should we believe that there is a tree there that bears seven kinds of fruit for the healing of the nations?
The point is made that often the Bible employs metaphorical language to convey concepts that the human mind would not otherwise be able to grasp.
However, if the Savior riding into history on a white steed is not to be taken all that seriously, why should we accept promises of His return at all or claims that He entered into the world the first time through the womb of a holy virgin, or that He rose from the dead so that those that believe in Him might have eternal life?
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, April 07, 2014
A Negro Annie Movie? Liberals really like to flaunt how much they despise White folks. Producers seemed to have no problem keeping the mean lady that ran the orphanage as White. The preview knew it was going for shock value. Viewers had no idea it was even Annie until "Tomorrow" was sung at the end.
Brian McLaren lamented that he lives in a nation that spends 50% of the world's military budget. Perhaps he would prefer to live in a less protected nation. Him going on about how much he despises traditional Christianity, the United States, and being White is not going to dissuade that many jihadists.
Thursday, April 03, 2014
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
A Newsmax.com headline reads “Pollard’s Ex-Wife: He’s In Terrible Health.” The story goes on to point out that the spy convicted of turning secrets over to the Israeli government is Jewish? So what to both of these claims? If Pollard was given a life sentence, why shouldn’t he serve out the term behind bars? Should Aldrich Ames be released should he befall ill health? Richard Hansen flaunted what were supposedly profound Catholic beliefs. Should that descriptor be invoked in every press account about that turncoat if religious affiliation is somehow worthy of additional sympathy now in espionage cases?
Tuesday, April 01, 2014
So while he jets around the globe informing everyone of his noble principles, you are suppose to live in a mud hut suffering from a terminal case of diarrhea.
Click On The Headline.
Monday, March 31, 2014
On 3/27/14 broadcast of Generations Radio, Kevin Swanson cautioned against the cult of celebrity and the usual downfall into immorality that such figures often fall into. Interestingly, he was just as critical of detailed exposes pertaining to such as gossipy in nature. Must be trying to brush over whatever scandal his former sidekick Dave Buehner was caught in since that broadcaster’s abrupt dismissal from the broadcast.
As a religious sect adhering to a legalistic view of salvation, the Jehovah Witnesses believe that it is a matter of eternal importance to avoid blood transfusions at all costs, even at the price of health and life itself. It is generally accepted that parents have the right to raise their children in compliance with the beliefs of the respective family’s faith. To adherents of the Watchtower Society, this means they ought to be able to refuse medical treatment for their children requiring blood transfusions. However, as the institution charged with overseeing the physical well being of those residing within its boundaries (especially for those unable to do so for themselves), the state might have other priorities as to whether or not an ailing child receives a blood transfusion.
What makes such an example so compelling is the variety of ethical issues of the most visceral variety involved. Foremost among these is the freedom of religion.
Here in the United States, citizens are allowed to believe what they want and pretty much permitted to live according to these principles so long as they do not infringe upon the well being and liberties of others from an activist standpoint. Relatedly, it is believed parents have the right to raise their children in accord with these principles and overall children are better off under the care of parents that genuinely love them than under detached bureaucracies. That said, the state has the obligation to protect the physical well-being of those that cannot do so for themselves. Unfortunately, this may often include small children unable to defend themselves against parents that do not have their priorities in order.
Fundamental to the American conception of human rights is the phrase contained in the Declaration of Independence of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Without life, the other two are essentially meaningless.
As such, in most instances life must take precedence, especially in cases where the individual for whom the decision is being made is unable to make an informed one on their own. If the Jehovah Witness child was a teenager or an intelligent adolescent that refused medical treatment with the consent of the parents, the state should mind its own business and refrain from interference. It is generally considered improper to force treatment upon someone that does not want it since is their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that is at stake. However, two year olds are unable to make such decisions on their own and it would not be right for parents on their own to deny liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a child whose life is in need of direct emergency medical intervention.
While the state has the imperative and obligation to protect the lives of its most innocent members, that does not mean its agents should eagerly rush in to break up families as is the mindset of many in so-called “child protective services” in a manner akin to Janet Reno bursting in with guns blazing into the Branch Davidian compound. Rather, the notion that one may lure more flies with sugar than vinegar may be a more appropriate strategy.
First, hospital officials should assure the parents that everything is being done to treat the child initially with procedures that do not necessarily involve a blood transfusion. Secondly, in discussions of this kind of case, Roe notes that in certain circumstances an appeal to Watchtower officials might be able to persuade them to permit the transfusion even though it is not in compliance with the sect’s normal policy (120).
Such an instance might also be better handled by the hospital chaplain or Christian acquaintances since it might make the parents even more defensive if confronted by hospital personnel or child protection bureaucrats that hand down edicts with all the compassion of the IRS or DMV. As fellow theists though of a considerably different persuasion, the chaplain or Christian friend could discuss the passages from which the prohibitions against blood transfusions are drawn and explain in a kind and understanding manner how they do not necessarily apply and how God forgives those that ask and that no deed other than the failure to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ for our sins is beyond redemption by His blood.
The bond between parent and child is strong. Under normal circumstances, a loving parent is not going to allow harm to come to that child without taking action.
However, in rare instances where the child is in danger of imminent loss of life and is not competent as to consent to their own medical treatment and parents forbid intervention on the part of physicians, authorities from the various spheres overseeing medical services may be required to use their assorted forms of influence to persuade the parents that it is in the best interests of the child to allow treatment. At first, this should be done in a friendly and conversational manner. However, if they do not relent, higher authorities such as the courts and social services may need to be consulted in a judicious manner that preserves the physical well being of the child as well as inflict minimal damage to the integrity of the parent/child relationship.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Often, criticism is raised about people piddling away on their smartphones and not interacting with others around them in public. Interestingly, the same ones fawning all over themselves as to how much they relish on the spot social interaction are more than likely the same ones that wouldn’t give the more withdrawn and reclusive the time of day. So, in other words, the more introverted are obligated to surrender what is perhaps one of the few ways they might be comfortable engaging with the world in order to merely assuage the communitarian inclinations of those that don’t give a flip that they otherwise exist.
If Joan Rivers saw herself in the mirror, she'd probably turn to stone like Medusa. But she's so old at this point she'd probably just collapse into a pile of dust.
Click On The Headline
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Regarding the downfall of homeschool guru Doug Phillips, it is being admonished that Christians should not put so much faith in those in positions of leadership. Likewise, it is because such figures are fallible that Christians should not allow these figures have so much direct control over their individual lives. Beyond the weekly sermon and casual acquaintanship, it is best not to grant anyone in pastoral leadership control over your private affairs.
It was asked online how America can condemn other nation’s that allow polygamy when this country allows people to marry, divorce, and marry again and often for any reason whatsoever? For starters, the American serial marriages are not occurring all at the same time. Secondly, in these countries that allow the practice of polygamy, often the woman or women have very little say about whether or not additional wives are brought into the household. Furthermore, often these polygamist marriages are imposed upon girls that barely have an awareness of the birds and the bees. Seldom do you see these gerontological perverts eager to get it on with those around their same age. In America, hardly anyone is forced to wed a divorced spouse. American woman go into these less than optimal partnerships of their own choosing. They are not sold off like cattle in these dirt pile countries. Thirdly, just because a government or popular consensus might allow for a particular practice does not mean those holding to a contrary perspective cannot vocalize opposition. It is that these days that there are so many debaucheries going on at the same time that the critical mind must prioritize. At least the divorced and remarried are striving towards the monogamist ideal.
Click On The Headline
Redskins owner Dan Synder is establishing a foundation to benefit so-called “original Americans”. So apparently worth ought to be determined by the color of skin rather than the content of character. Would a similar program on the part of the Minnesota Vikings targeting handouts exclusively to the descendants of Scandinavians and related Nordic peoples be as applauded or even permitted? Even those categorized as American Indians migrated to these shores at some time or the other. If not, they would not be part of our human species. Either way, since that event occurred millennia ago, none of them are alive now anyway. As such, the descendants of that particular group of settlers are no more original than those who are as pale as the proverbial Dutch baby’s backside.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
“Fred Phelps was hated for speaking the truth about the militant homosexual. The militant homosexual is no friend of God, and no friend of America. I'm not saying I agreed with Fred's methods, I'm just saying I agreed with Fred.”
Usually, Bachmann is more insightful than this.
So you should go around telling parents that their children died in car wrecks because your states wasn't tough enough on the sodomites?
Furthermore, it was doubtful that the Amish school children slaughtered by a deranged gunman that the Phelps cult insisted got what they deserved were preparing for a gay pride rally.
The problem with Fred Phelps was not his stance against homosexuality.
Where he went off the deep end was blaming everyone else for things over which they had no control.
And would Michelle Bachmann so eagerly insert her nose into the rectal cavity of this religious lunatic if her own personal tragedies were ridiculed and exploited for the sake of ecclesiastical showmanship?
Monday, March 24, 2014
Friday, March 21, 2014
As evidence, the example was given of Catholics that attend church every day especially to receive the mass.
On of the strengths of Protestantism is its realization and contention that one does not require the assistance of a priest to commune with God if one does not so desire.
After all, the priesthood is of ALL believers and just not a professional class.
Thus, your access to God is as direct from your bed chamber as it is in the most magnificent cathedral.
It is only human limitations that impose such a distinction in these venues.
So aren't Protestants making a fuss that one ought to be in church daily to exhibit an acceptable level of devotion to God really insisting that going to church is not so much about worshiping God as it is about OTHERS seeing you supposedly worshiping God?
by Frederick Meekins
On The Five, Andrea Tantaros in reference to a middle school principal forcing pupils to speak English suggested that American students instead be forced to speak Spanish. Had the pundit been alive during the Second World War, would she applaud Poles being forced to speak German or, the inhabitants of Manchuria, Japanese?
The purpose of the rally was to intimidate the chain store into joining the Fair Food Program.
That initiative is not the focus of these comments.
Unless that activist theologian has moved to that particular locality, an even more interesting observation is how did Brian McLaren get there?
It is quite a walk from Maryland to Florida.
Even a bicycle ride would be out of the question.
Interestingly, part of McLaren's shtick on the rubber chicken circuit is to denigrate modern conveniences and technology.
In one interview, McLaren denounced the four walled structure necessary to provide shelter as separating man from God's creation.
So apparently while you, mere pew filler, are to feel shamed for having a roof over your head and maybe a car in the driveway, McLaren is so important that the world economy will collapse if he doesn't get to play labor organizer in the mid winter Florida sun.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, March 20, 2014
That's the kind of theological reasoning the SOB applied to everybody else.
Click On The Headline
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
On an episode of Avengers Assemble, Captian America got all on his high horse badmouthing Tony Stark’s reliance upon technology. Given that without the super soldier formula, Steve Rogers wasn’t much more than a proverbial 100 pound weakling, Stark should have reminded him that Captain America is himself little more than a piece of technology and, when you come down to it, a government sanctioned steroid abuser.
Best be careful whose hot cross buns you are ogling.
Click On The Headline
Friday, March 14, 2014
Click On The Headline
Thursday, March 13, 2014
An Internet meme distributed on Facebook by Occupy London depicts a U.S. soldier with an assortment of corporate logos plastered over his uniform such as Exxon and Mobil. The caption reads, “900 bases in 153 countries isn't fighting for freedom. It is an empire.” Without secure fossil fuels, would these beatniks be able to operate the mobile communications devices and online social networks they adore or prance around at farmers markets? If it is wrong for oil companies to rake in money, do they also begrudge the billions raked in the Facebook or Twitter executives? More importantly, if this wing of the Occupy movement is outraged over 900 military bases in 153 countries, do they get as jacked out of shape over their fellow activists expressing themselves through the vandalism of private businesses, the desecration of churches, and the defecating upon police cruisers?
With the increasing movement towards the legalization of pot, how come television viewers aren't subjected to nearly the same number of public services announcements these days attempting to condition against this physiologically altering substance as targeted at tobacco or even sugary beverages?
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
By Fanatic Homeschool Standards Is Duggar Wench Robbing The Cradle With Boy Toy Two Years Her Junior?
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Those supporting breast cancer research apparently think it is appropriate for students to wear apparel declaring “I Love Boobies”. These days, one is not to dare question the health initiatives favored by assorted feminists. I pointed out such articles of clothing would be as appropriate in an educational setting as items with the slogan “I love nuts” blazoned upon them in order to raise testicular cancer awareness. For making this comparison, I was sent an email message how someone’s nephew suffers from this affliction and how it is caused by a gene similar to that which causes breast cancer. I sympathize with those afflicted with these diseases, but the point otherwise being? So since I’ve had family members with prostrate cancer, does that mean I am justified in walking around in a t-shirt that reads “Up Yours!” since that is the primary way that particular disease is initially screened?
Cardinal Dolan has suggested that Catholics ought to be required to give up meat on Friday's in order to identify with the suffering of Christ. Too bad Dolan at times has not been as serious about pedophiles giving up on underage children. Seems to me that might make Jesus even happier.
The Same Ecclesiastical Dimwits Sneering Down Their Noses At 7 Day Creationists Lack The Brain Power To Realize An Alligator Is Not A Fish
Home Educator Accussed Of Being A Little Too "Hands On" In Regards To Buxom & Comely Female Students
So on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., was the body in suspended animation that Coulson stumbled upon suppose to be an extraterrestrial or what was left of Coulson’s body following his death in the Avengers film with the being now known as Coulson a clone of the original with the original’s consciousness downloaded into the cloned body or a brain programed with the original Coulson’s memories?
Monday, March 10, 2014
If one was required to show one's hands to the robots in order to be categorized as non-threatening, since the movie was already saltier than it needed to be in terms of profanity, someone should have given the droids the finger.
Samuel Jackson is amusing in his spoof of Bill O'Reilly.
The scene where the senator was kicked off the "Novak Element" was quite reminiscent of the Fox News pundit interrupting guests he doesn't agree with.
Despite the relevancy of the underlying ethical conflict, the film wasn't necessarily an improvement over the 1980's version in all respects.
The more mechanized voice of the title character in the original and Murphy having done to him whatever his corporate masters wanted without any notion of consent on the part of his family since he was "dead" in eyes of the law and thus without any rights was a more dramatic portrayal of the threats posed to fundamental assumptions of humanity by radical cybernetic life extension technologies allowed to get out of control.
There are probably just as many photographs of teens getting drunk if one digs deep enough and accounts are notorious of errant spouses utilizing this revolutionary communications technology to abet adultery.
There are valid arguments made from both positions as to the propriety of gun sales facilitated over social networks.
But what is the big fuss over a gun picture?
Online, those guns are probably about as real as the bosoms of the scantily clad models attempting to entice you to click on links for a wide variety of products and services.
Perhaps the most appropriate advice is adapted from the moral libertines any time a parent or even a concerned citizen raises a reservation about the amount of exposed flesh or non-marital boudoir frolicking depicted in the contemporary media.
If you don't like to look at pictures of guns, don't look at them.
By Frederick Meekins