Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Planned Parenthood Views Contraceptives As Essential To Hurricane Recovery

To bad it wasn't their headquarters and their headquarters alone that was washed away with no one in it.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Apostate Jesters Blaspheme Holy Communion


Given the “so what?” and “You better be quiet or its off to a reeducation camp with you” response I’ve gotten from even a number of so-called “Conservatives” regarding the Harry Potter craze and reports of Lois Lane’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, I guess what I am about to describe is considered OK now as well.

I first heard of this listening to an episode of Kevin Swanson’s Generations Radio archived at SermonAudio.com. Doesn’t take a theological genius to realize that the Episcopal Church is a joke, but this is taking things to a whole new level.

On May 22. 2005, a so-called “Clown Mass” was held at Trinity Church in New York City where these buffoons made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. With sodomites infesting the ranks of this harlot denomination, certainly puts the term “assclown” into an entirely different context.

Such antics are not the first plunge of the ranks of Episcopal/Anglican clergy into such lunacy. In the late 60’s or there abouts, a number of Episcopal ministers parachuted off a building in order to “bring the young people back into the church”. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery has jokingly remarked of the incident, if God wasn’t dead, maybe He wishes He were.

More traditional Evangelicals stand back and watch, thinking such foolishness could never occur in their denominations and congregations. The sad truth is these once stalwart bastions of theological propriety are well on their way to reveling in such ecclesiastical hijinks.

Since they prefer to do nothing more than mock and ridicule the traditional American way of “doing church”, what’s to prevent the Emergent Church movement from resorting to a Clown Communion of their own? After all, with their baggie, torn pants and bodies proudly defaced with tattoos, many in these religious freak shows are already well on their way to looking like clowns.

With most socioreligious taboos being tossed aside, a vast number of Evangelicals out of a misbegotten perception that since the Blood of Christ covers over a broad array of sins hold that these sins must no longer be construed as sins for fear of running afoul of public constituencies promoting such behaviors. In such a do-your-own-thing environment, the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper dangles by a very thin thread. For if many in the church aren’t even going to bat an eye at literature casting witchcraft in a positive light and consider it a greater impropriety to point out the scandal of procreating outside of marriage than actually breeding like a rabbit without legal blessing, what is to prevent us from getting to the point of viewing this sacrament as little more than midmorning crackers and juice if we are no longer to be shocked by the previously mentioned transgressions in our jaded age?

How much farther are things going to go? If you raise concerns about the influence of witchcraft over the minds of the young or raise an eyebrow as to the propriety of Superman’s main squeeze living a life of sleaze, you’re the one they want to burn at the stake or run out of town. Won’t be long until those insisting the Lord’s Supper be conducted with sobriety and decorum will be castigated as intolerant fuddies out of touch with developing religious sensibilities.

During the French Revolution, violent mobs desecrated a cathedral by sitting a scantily clad woman upon the altar. At least those minions of perdition had the decency to b upfront about their anti-Christian motives. Today, those that would defile holy things have either learned to be more deceptive about their blasphemy or not quite as intelligent about the evil they do since silliness has replaced seriousness throughout much of the modern church.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Libraries Without Books

Punky Brewster Spawns

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Friday, August 19, 2005

Additional Thoughts Concerning The Despair Of Naturalism

In trying to elevate himself by attempting to remove God from His rightful place upon the throne of the universe, man ends up far from elevating himself and instead finds himself ensnared to a form of despair and bondage far worse than anything that could be imagined under the yolk of Biblical Christianity.

To say that an individual possesses free will is to say that he has the ability to make decisions based upon some criteria existing beyond mere physical impulse.

However, materialistic evolutionary theory contends that this arena of the will does not exist as part of a deeper spiritual reality but is rather mere electrochemical response to physical stimuli with no higher reason or purpose.

Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture that evolutionary theory in the form of humanistic thought has reduced everything to the level of a component in a great universal machine.

Of this outlook, Schaeffer writes, “In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex but not intrinsically different (164).”

To prove such an observation is more than Evangelical hyperbole, Schaeffer quotes Harvard University Chemistry Professor George Wald who said, “Four hundred years ago there was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare which produced Hamlet (164).”

In order to remain consistent, those holding to such a perspective have to concede such a masterpiece is not so much the result of creative insight as it is a fortuitous case of gas. And to any naturalist offended by my remarks, they cannot very well complain about them since by their own worldview, I had no control over what I wrote.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Respect For The Dead Or Fear Of What Lies Ahead?

My brief comments regarding Stephen Jay Gould’s family suing over his death from cancer at the hands of inept doctors generated a greater response than anticipated, once again proving the role played by evolution as a fault line in the ongoing battle of values dividing much of America. Yet despite the emotional responses Darwin’s theory continues to evoke, those seeking to escape the implications of a universe created and sustained by God continue to formulate arguments in defense of their position that even a Neanderthal could see through.

One response chided me as a soulless individual for supposedly “speaking so ill of the dead” for pointing out the inconsistencies of materialists seeking compensation for the loss of a loved one since by definition that worldview has no objective standard upon which to base right or wrong with human beings ultimately of no more importance than the disease organisms doctors regularly seek to eradicate.

On what grounds does a naturalist accuse someone of having no soul? To the naturalist, the soul does not exist.

If matter is all that exists and is the ultimate foundation of the universe, mind is nothing more than electronic impulses coursing through the brain. Thus, if we are nothing more than the sum of the sum total of our physical parts, one can no more be held accountable for one’s comments than they can be for the need to go to the bathroom if thoughts are to the brain what urine is to the kidneys.

Interestingly, why do those professing belief that this world is all that is with no afterlife even care whatsoever about what I have to say about someone that has ceased to exist? It’s not like the deceased is going to read my comments.

Though Christianity affirms the existence of an afterlife, there is nothing in the Bible saying we are forbidden from discussing the ignoble deeds of the departed. If we were forbidden from doing so, that would also mean we could not discuss the failings of Joseph McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, or any other figure the Left feels the need to criticize incessantly. Why should Stephen Jay Gould be granted an exception?

In all likelihood having now had his faulty thinking corrected through the singeing flames of hellfire if he continued to deny Christ until his last breath, Dr. Gould would probably thank me for taking the time to warn others of the errors and inconsistencies of his previously held views. In Luke 16:27-28, the rich man sent to hell says, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”

In the raising of such a fuss about correcting the fallacies of the errant departed, one is forced to speculate whether such concerns are raised out of a misdirected sense of propriety or more from a desire to avoid contemplating the fate that awaits themselves should they continue to ignore the pangings of their own conscience.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Saturday, August 06, 2005

A Review Of 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch

Regardless of one’s opinion of Tony Campolo, one has to admit Campolo is not afraid to speak his mind.

In 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch, Campolo takes on some of the most difficult issues confronting contemporary Christianity.

Some of the issues addressed from the chapter titles include “Are Evangelicals Too Pro-Israel” and “Where Does A Single Woman Over 30 Go To Get Rid Of Loneliness?”

Some of Campolo’s comments are insightful such as those realizing that singleness is as ordained of God as marriage.

Other comments reveal a serious misunderstanding as to the fundamental nature of human nature.

In the chapter dealing with homosexuality, Campolo suggests that Evangelicals grant a blessing to celibate gays living together.

But humanly speaking, will any relationship between romantically attracted adults living under the same roof remain celibate for long?

Even among Christians, one reason for disinterest in the church is its failure to address the concerns of the day and instead explicate some arcane Old Testament passage week after week with little application to the life of the average Christian.

If nothing else, even despite his errors, Campolo’s text should spark interesting Sunday school debates or riveting rejoinders from the pulpit.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Tuesday, August 02, 2005