Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Doesn't the person admonishing someone they shouldn't bother getting married because the Lord is on the verge of return actually have the more questionable theology than the person momentarily upset by the rebuke realizing that they might not have the opportunity to get married? Then why hasn't that person been the subject of repeated giggles and ridicule over the course of a sermon series? A bit incredulous for the chronologically advanced who've pretty much already gotten what they wanted from life to chewout the young for being less than enthusiastic about the End.
Isn't it hypocritical for Glenn Beck to denounce attack ads? His entire TV show is nearly one continious attack ad. What was week after week of exposing Van Jones and the like? As John Stossel pointed out, it is only through the attack ads that voters learn anything of actually substance.
The first worldview examined will be Deism. As with Christianity, Deism believes that God created the universe and set it up to operate in accord with a system of natural laws both physical and moral that are discoverable by mankind. What sets Deism apart from Christianity is the extent to which each believes God intervenes in the affairs of both nature and man.
Often, Deism is described as the watchmaker view of God. Those holding to this view believe that, while God created the world and set it into motion, the natural laws He established were so comprehensive that God no longer intervenes in or on His creation’s behalf. This assumption puts it at odds with orthodox Biblical theology on a number of points.
As a system, it could be said that Deism served as a transitional set of beliefs between two great epochs of Western intellectual history. Following the upheaval of religious conflicts such as the Thirty Years War, in a sense Deism was a recoil to the horrors of dogma that had been exorcised of the doctrines of compassion and moderation.
Deism also softened the shock to those wanting to turn their backs on a Biblically-based understanding of life but not yet ready to embrace the rampant secularism characterizing the more recent contemporary era. Deism was also the end product of the scholastic undertakings of the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration whereby European thinkers had to come to grips with the realization that a world, a goodly portion of it consisting of cultures as at least as complex as their's, existed beyond the borders of Christendom.
The Father of English Deism was Herbert of Cherbury. In his book “On Truth“, Herbert established the following principles as common to all men: that there is one supreme God, that he ought to be worshipped, that virtue and piety are the chief parts of worship, that we ought to be sorry for our sins, and that a divine goodness dispenses rewards and punishments both in this life and the hereafter (153).
At a quick glance, the list does not appear all that controversial and there is not much there the orthodox Christian would disagree with. However, it is what is not on the list that Deists following after Herbert of Cherbury expanded upon that brought this worldview's anti-Christian underpinnings to full fruition for all the world to see.
One thinker that most have at least a cursory knowledge of connected to Deism was John Locke. According to Geisler, Locke in “The Reasonableness Of Christianity” endorsed the Deist unitarian view of God and denied the deity of Christ.
Among early Deists, the average Christian would really have to be on their toes to detect the subtle attacks against the faith. Often then the attacks were carefully aimed at other religious systems rather than directly on the Bible itself. However, as society became more accepting as to the amount of dissent that could be openly expressed, a number of Deists more bluntly stated their antagonisms with varying degrees of success.
For example, Matthew Tindal in “Christianity As Old As Creation” argued that, since God is perfect by definition, the revelation of God in the created order is so complete that the idea of the Bible is superfluous and is actually inferior as Tindal considered the Bible to be full of errors anyway (160). And by the time of the founding of the United States of America and the early years of the Republic, Thomas Jefferson edited a version of the Bible exorcising the Scriptures of their miraculous content. Our third president ended the Gospel with “there laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone in front of the sepulcher and departed”, thus causing this version of the good news not to be all that good as Jesus had not risen according to this act of censorship (165).
Source: Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.
by Frederick Meekins
Interesting that Juan Williams would be done in amongst his liberal bedfellows over matters of appropriate speech. For years, he has insisted in various interviews that Whites should have greater restrictions placed upon them than Blacks regarding what Caucasians should be permitted to say.
Monday, October 25, 2010
All that marriage is an indication of is that a person is married. Contrary to a number of churches, ministries, and political candidates, it is not a barometer of spiritual maturity or standard of eligibility for ecclesiastical or political office. The statistics on broken and unhappy marriages alone are evidence of this truth.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
A biology professor there is insisting that modern society has developed an unfounded prejudice against bare feet.
As part of his proof, he cites photographs of early 20th century school children with unshod feet.
What he fails to realize or point out is that those children were likely that way because their parents couldn't afford shoes rather than as a result of conscientious fashion choice.
This case reminds me of some nutcase pastor from the Baltimore area, who despite his many trips abroad and such, berated his congregation for having more than one pair of shoes because the Africans he had encountered didn't have more than one pair.
Of course, it was never mentioned if we shouldn't travel abroad because the average African doesn't tend to travel abroad.
Before this foolishness meets its conclusion, as in the case of those that disfigure themselves with religious tattoos or those that made a big production of being discalced in the times of medieval Catholicism, those that go about without benefit of shoes will be applauded as spiritually better than the rest of us and those refusing to participate in podiatric nudity as average Americans will be accused yet another drain on environmental resources.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
In the 4/19/10 edition of USA Today, religious antiquarian Phillip Jenkins, by comparing extremist Islam with assorted atrocities committed in the name of Christianity over the centuries, details from an historical perspective how any religion can be co-opted in the name of violence. Though his warning is in part a timeless one that needs to be considered in all ages, Professor Jenkins' case overlooks a number of important points.
First, it must be remembered that, though horrible, the lynching and dismemberment of Hypatia and the abuses perpetrated by Cyril highlighted by Professor Jenkins occurred centuries ago. The violence committed by Islamic extremists is going on today.
That does not diminish the evils inflicted so long ago or repudiate the lessons that can be learned from such ancient accounts. However, the danger arises when this sense of scholastic detachment is then applied to the issue of contemporary terrorism.
Secondly, it must be remembered that such violence perpetrated solely for expansive religious purposes in the name of the Lord by human hands is not endorsed by Christ during the dispensation of grace. In Acts 17, Paul debated and dialogued with the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill; he didn’t crack open their heads.
For Christians, Jesus during the time of His first advent and Paul are to serve as examples in regards to faith, practice, and missiological strategy. It could be argued that Muhammad serves a similar function in the life of the Muslim.
It would be factually incorrect to say that all Muslims are prone to fanatic violence. However, those using violence for socioreligious ends are more faithful in emulating the example set by Muhammad and the text he promoted than supposed Christians committing violence are in living up to New Testament standards.
Professor Jenkins would no doubt argue that those emphasizing violent manifestations of Islam while neglecting violent expressions of Christianity are doing a disservice to history. He has committed this very offense by insinuating that violent atrocities are a phenomena exclusive to unhinged religions and not something plaguing other social institutions.
Jenkins writes, "Out-of-control clergy, religious demagogues with their consecrated militias, religious parties usurping the functions of the state --- these were the common currency of the Christian world just a few decades after the Roman Empire made Christianity its official religion. He continues a paragraph or two later, "...given a sufficiently weak state mechanism, any religion can be used to justify savagery and extremism."
Are you going to tell me that an historian of Phillip Jenkins' repute is not aware of the countless deaths that result not so much from a "sufficiently weak state mechanism" but from a state made too strong at the expense of other cultural spheres? For example, Jenkins writes, "Between 450 and 650 AD, during what I call the 'Jesus Wars', inter-Christian conflicts and purges killed hundreds of thousands, and all but wrecked the Roman Empire."
Such conflict is tragic. However, it could be argued that the Roman Empire was, to use a highly technical historical metaphor, heading down the toilet well before then and for a number of additional reasons.
Frankly, the Roman Empire wrecked itself. Christians didn't instigate the debaucheries for which the waning years of the Empire have become infamous such as gladiatorial combat, rampant orgies, and even incest among the ruling elite.
History is as much a reflection of the values of those writing it as it is about the past era being written about. As such, Professor Jenkins needs to be asked why he thinks the violence perpetrated by warring bishops is somehow worse or the victims any more dead than the Christians slaughtered by Roman authorities for little more than quietly adhering to their own convictions.
It would seem that the most important lesson to take away from the great tragedies of history is that innocent human lives are lost when institutions of authority assume power to extents and over matters they were never intended. The regimes more blatantly hostile of Christianity such as Nazism and Communism were actually the regimes that turned the slaughter of the innocent and dissidents into an exact science.
It has been said that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Concentrating power in the hands of government at the expense of other social institutions in the name of preventing tyranny is one of the surest ways of bringing about that particularly undesirable state of political affairs.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 18, 2010
Fascinating conjecture on Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" that Lyme disease was an experiment released from the Plum Island research center since the founder of that facility was a Nazi who theorized that ticks could be used in bio-warfare. Both localities are in close proximity to each other.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Contrary to Glenn Beck's ruminations, one rides public transportation to get from point "A" to point "B". One does not do so for compulsory interactive socialization.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
And will the NFL prounce about honoring prostate or testicular cancer.
Guess the game has become so feminized that there is no need to be concerned about those masculine afflictions anyway.
Can't the game just be played without making everything so solemn and ponderous?
If there is no explicitly Christian running in an election, how can it be a sin to vote for an unbeliever if there is no other alternative? Was Paul in mortal error for living in the Roman Empire? While leftist churches have been quick to chuck the notion of sin out the window, the hyperpious are often overly eager to guilt-trip their respective congregations.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Friday, October 08, 2010
Granted, Evangelical Christians need to be cautious of their entanglements with Glenn Beck because he is a Mormon. However, he is about one of the few games in town in terms of exposing a number of the things he does. This is due in part because of the tendency in hyperpious circles to manipulate the young among their ranks into believing that the truly devout worthy of praise and emulation are involved with foreign missions and definitely not politics or mass communications.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
International Walk To School Day might have a place if its goal is to raise awareness of motorists to be on the lookout for perambulating pupils. However, if the occasion is promoted from the standpoint of brainwashing students as to the evils of automobiles or to track those least likely to comply with handed-down directives, it is not the business of educational authorities how a child gets to school. Maybe officials want more children run over or abducted so as to have statistical justification for additional surveillance of the American people and curtailment of any number of basic liberties.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
If Rushdoonyian Christian Reconstructionists want to reimplement absolutist interpretation of regulations regarding the Sabbath, are among those they plan to stone publically those that pop a piece of bread in the toaster? Will they also cut off natural gas or electricity to prevent malefactors from cooking?
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Monday, October 04, 2010
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Seems now every group with the exception of White males has a federally sanctioned museum explicitly named in their honor.
Perhaps one day there will be a museum or at least a memorial to fiscal solvency.
Future generations in chains or the decrepit elderly on their way to mandatory euthanasia could be filed through catching a glimpse of murals or displays of what life was like when responsible spending was one of the pillars of character ensuring freedom and prosperity.
by Frederick Meekins