Thursday, March 31, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
II Peter 2:1 warns of false teachers introducing destructive heresies. Like an intelligence agency, the Church must gather information on its opponents in order to protect its members and to devise strategies on how to extricate those held hostage to these competing systems. Some Serious, Popular False Doctrines Answered From The Scriptures By John R. Rice serves as an excellent briefing.
Garnished from Dr. Rice’s decades of ministry, False Doctrines is an introduction to many of the heresies and aberrant beliefs plaguing the modern religious scene ranging from the esoteric such as spiritualists and fortunetellers, to the obscure such as Anglo-Israelism, to the downright socially dangerous such as Socialism/Communism. In an era characterized by an overemphasis on tolerance, some Evangelicals might object to Rice’s stance criticizing Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, and the Church of Christ.
Yet despite Rice’s confrontational brand of militant Fundamentalism, this work is written in a spirit of kindness, love, and understanding as portions of the book are responses to actual letters received by Dr. Rice from adherents of the various doctrines under consideration.
False Doctrines also provides insight into the Fundamentalist position on issues debated within the broader Evangelical community such as Calvinistic predestination and the legitimacy of tongues.
Rice served as founder and editor of the Sword of The Lord, which is still published to this day as a primary source of news and views within the Fundamentalist movement, until his passing in 1980. Some Serious, Popular False Doctrines Answered From The Scriptures remains an excellent guidebook through which to survey the vibrant American religious landscape from a conservative Christian perspective.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, March 25, 2005
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
While you will incessantly hear that the shooter at the Indian reservation in Minnesota frequented a Neo-Nazi website and even went so far as to oppose interracial dating (an aspect of his belief system irrelevant to this horrible deed), apart from the CNSNews.com story bet you won't hear much of this group's ties to radical environmentalism.
Will be interesting to see if this will be enough to resuscitate his reputation in the eyes of liberals.
Interestingly, its not often pointed out that apart from its racist propensities, Nazism was also characterized by deep ecological underpinnings as well with one of its key slogans being “Blood & Soil” denoting the alleged superiority of the German people and their almost mystical connection to the Fatherland.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Saturday, March 19, 2005
It is assumed that a president in his second term has less to lose since he is not eligible for reelection and as such possesses a greater opportunity to assert himself in terms of policy than many consider prudent for a Commander-And-Chief in the first term. In a time of war, one would assume this would mean the President would come down harder upon the enemies of the nation vowing to wipe the United States from the face of the earth.
Regardless of one’s opinion of President Bush, one has to admit at certain moments in the war on terror he has spoken with refreshing bluntness uncharacteristic of a politician holding public office. However, as the President prepared to commence upon his second term he backpedaled and seemed to say some things that could be construed as embracing the Kerryite doctrine of waging a “more sensitive war”.
According to President Bush in his pre-inaugural Barbara Walters interview, he regretted having said in reference to the Iraqi insurgents “to bring it on” and that he wanted Osama Bin Ladin “Dead or alive”. While his feelings regarding the Iraqi insurgents are understandable in light of the tragic deaths of American servicemen serving as a testament that these savages were not as easy to neutralize as originally assessed, why in the world should anyone feel bad about wanting Osama Bin Ladin brought in dead or alive?
Perhaps we need to be reminded what this homicidal fanatic is accused of doing. Encase everyone has forgotten, Bin Ladin is responsible for killing over 3000 Americans.
Why in the name of Hades should we care if Bin Ladin and his groupies get their feelings hurt? From the impression given by the President, he might be more afraid of his old lady than international terrorism.
Thus the Commander-And-Chief feared as a cowboy in the Bolshevist press is actually henpecked and beholden to the Mrs. in a manner different only in degree and not necessarily in kind to that of the Oval Office’s previous occupant. For as with the previous administration, this one also is tempted to pursue a foreign policy characterized by the female characteristics of timidity and weak-mindedness.
After receiving a verbal smack down from Laura, the spanked President said with his head down, “So I have to be cautious about...conveying thoughts in a way maybe that doesn’t send wrong impressions about our country.” And what “improved” image does this apology convey: that in America the President’s wife is the spouse wearing the pants in the First Family?
That will certainly go a long way in striking fear in the hearts of our enemies. The only thing it will do is serve as evidence that, like the sisssified nations of Europe, the United States is decayed and ripe for conquest.
Apparently, in apologizing the President would rather America be perceived on par with France or Spain rather than as a cowboy. But whom would you rather call on in a crisis: John Wayne or Peppi La Phew?
When some scumbag breaks into your home, are you going to prattle on about the brotherhood of man and the equitable distribution of resources or are you going to do whatever it takes to get the brigand --- dead or alive --- off your property and away from your loved ones? The decision usually isn’t difficult for real men; however, it is in all likelihood, more ponderous for European ones or those seeking their approval.
Equally naive is the President’s belief that tsunami relief will improve the image of the U.S. abroad, especially among Islamic nations. For while President Bush is to be commended for realizing the threat posed by world terrorism, he fails to grasp Islam’s inherent hatred of Judeo-Christian values and civilization as well as hostility to U.S. strategic interests.
In an expression of heartwarming gratitude, the Indonesian government intimated they wanted relief forces out of the country and went so far as to forbid the Marines from carrying firearms in their backwards nation swarming with terrorists and assorted malcontents. But no guns, no Marines.
The Indonesians are the ones needing the aide. It makes no difference to America what happens to such an insignificant country if that’s going to be that nation’s attitude.
Indonesia needs America a lot more than America needs Indonesia. They ought to be grateful for every penny we send them and should welcome with open arms military assistance as first rate and magnanimous as ours.
As a result of a desire for approval, the perceived indecisiveness of the elder Bush led him to be derided as a wimp. We can only hope the current President Bush’s desire for acceptance does not compromise the need to stand up for American liberty’s in this precarious age.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, March 18, 2005
Maybe those appearing before this renegade magistrate should thumb their noses at his rulings.
Where are all the liberals that insist Judge Moore must obey the rulings of higher governing bodies whether he agrees with them or not? Guess they had to get rid of "Thou shalt not kill" so they could get by with what they are doing now.
One of the sad truths of this life is that most of us leave it under less than wonderful circumstances. One can only hope that those seeking to speed up the departure of Terri Schiavo from this world will be so gripped with guilt in the time of their own physical delcine that they are constantly looking over their shoulders in fear of who might be lurking in the shadows to inflict the same social evils upon them they now seek to unleash upon us all.
Copyright 2005 By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Monday, March 14, 2005
This was a very informative story about an issue you don't hear much about in the mainstream press.
According to the report, Mexican drug cartels --- some composed of former military personnel or in league with sympathetic police --- are kidnapping individuals they suspect possessing access to financial resources.
Thus far from the report, it seems they have primarily struck south of the border, but are extending operations into the United States. But as Mexican cultural influence continues to spread into the United States this could very well become a threat to all Americans. For if these desparados will do this to American citizens of a similar Hispanic background as their own, just think what horrors they would be willing to inflict upon Americans of Caucasian extraction.
In this era of sweeping the state of things to the south under the rug, John Walsh is to be commended for brining this issue to the attention of the mainstream media.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Regardless of one’s opinion of “The Simpsons”, one has to admit the show has no problem tackling controversial material most would rather sweep under the rug. And even though it would have been better had producers left the issue of gay marriage alone, the show was able to inject a degree of its classic subversive wit into what could have been an approach characterized by nothing but a doctrinaire political correctness.
When most heard sodomite matrimony was coming to the quintessential American town of Springfield, most assumed the abomination would be heralded with typical Hollywood applause and accolades. And though I would be uncomfortable with letting younger children view the episode, it was not without humorous aspects exposing the hypocrisy inherent to this social outrage.
For gay nuptials were not ultimately sanctioned in this fictional municipality out of a warped interpretation of love or equity but rather in an attempt to bring back lost tourist dollars after Bart and Milhaus create a bad impression of the town in the mind of a roving travel correspondent. Homer gets into the money making racket by getting ordained and opening a wedding chapel in his garage.
“The Simpsons” is often characterized by a degree of philosophical reflection beneath all of its silliness uncommon to television sitcoms. This episode also sparked additional thought by touching on the point that, if same sex marriage is allowed, on what grounds do we continue to forbid other reprehensible couplings? This point was comically made when brother and sister hillbillies wanted to get married and Homer fantasized about marrying himself (“Homersexual” marriage, eh) with a house full of little Homers.
The most penetrating point of the show centered around the ambivalence exhibited by Marge Simpson. Throughout the early part of the episode, Marge is an enthusiastic supporter of this social perversion.
However, overthrowing the established moral order loses a bit of its appeal when she learns one of her own sisters is a lesbian. Reminds one of the adage that a liberal is a conservative that has not been mugged yet, her revulsion at the prospects of her sister falling into this lifestyle serving as a testament to the disgust many experience to the practice despite their best efforts at being good little radicals and harping the party line.
Though most would be reluctant to admit it, the world depicted on “The Simpsons” is probably one of the most realistic reflections of the American moral climate on television today. If the episode meant to proclaim the joys and beauty of gay marriage to the nation is wracked by as much reluctance to the practice as was able to wiggle its way into the plot, it means --- though tottering on the edge of the abyss --- there is still a sliver of hope provided Americans of principle don’t cower before these boisterous libertines.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, March 04, 2005
Often evidence presented of Iran's abysmal human rights record is that nation's treatment of the cybercritics blogging away under that oppressive regime. However, with regulations being considered by the Federal Election Commission, there will soon be very little in principle distinguishing the Internet speech policies of the United States and one of the nations purported to be one of our most intractable enemies.
According to an interpretation of one ruling, bloggers could be charged with violating provisions of the campaign finance reform law for as little as linking to the website of a candidate they happen to favor.
I guess the best thing to do to keep what little speech rights we have remaining alive is to add pictures of dancing girls to our websites since the judiciary is reluctant to curtail salacious material (unlike political speech) and to assume anyone running for public office is by definition a scumbag and not worthy of a scintilla of support either virtual or actual.
Those sufficiently brainwashed by their overlords in the media/governmental complex might argue that the United States does not treat its dissidents in the same manner as an outlaw nation such as Iran. But in the light of overwhelming fines and court costs that will no doubt ruin the critics of the state, execution might actually be the more merciful alternative.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins