Tuesday, May 31, 2011
On WMAL, Tucker Carlson said he loved anyone that gave the finger to Iowa farmers in regards to ethanol subsidies. Would he endorse giving the finger to leftist groups such as the NAACP, La Raza, the Council On American-Islamic Relations, or the Anti-Defamation League?
Monday, May 30, 2011
However, it really needs to be clarified before the wider scope of the Church can endorse it.
For example, does the person making the statement include the entire breadth of human knowledge derived from reflection upon the creation and applications deduced from such cogitation?
If so, the statement can be endorsed.
If the postulator means that the true believer should only concern themselves with those areas carved out as exclusively as "religious", they are sadly mistaken.
For while the decree would seem to highlight the piety of the person making it, it is woefully inadequate to the complexity of the epistemological realities in which we find ourselves.
This is especially brought to light when the person is making such a proclamation over Internet technology in general and Facebook in particular.
For while the scientific advances making such wondrous technological breakthroughs possible are based upon principles established by God, I am not sure these devices would have come into existence by those that only sat around having the Scriptures drilled into their heads in a manner reminiscent of cultic brainwashing.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Can't get much more warped than this. A Christian Reconstructionist that would put Glenn Beck to death as a false prophet & deny women the right to vote insists it is constitutional & Biblical to allow access to hardcore narcotics. Sounds like he's been sampling some of these compounds.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Yahoo has promulgated a list of manners that it insists all children should know and abide by.
Many of these such as saying "please" and "thank you" or sending a "thank you note" are important courtesies. Others are simply a reminder just how much certain adults despise children.
Some of these serve no other purpose than to condition the individual into docility so as to be easier to control as adults.
For example, though a child ought to be trained to express their dislike of something in a polite manner, rule number six insists that "the world is not interested in what you dislike. Keep negative opinions to yourself, or between you and your friends, and out of earshot of adults."
Are adults so delicate that their world is going to be shattered should they hear that a child doesn’t like something? If society is that week, no wonder the Muslims are about to take over.
Furthermore, if this is harped upon as an adsolute, at what age does it end?
As an adult, might the person forced to live by this dictum then develop an inhabitation to speak out against anything imposed upon them by a self-appointed authority figure?
Most dictatorial regimes view governing institutions as the adults and the citizen or subject in the role of the child.
If one never speaks up to vocalize what is commonly referred to as a complaint, how will things ever change or improve?
Adults should try to get children to eat a healthy variety of foods, but there are some items you are just never going to like. I will have to pretty much be on death's door before I'll eat beets.
So if a child is never to inform an adult as to a food that the child does not like, should the child's gag reflux be adversely stimulated, will the adult clean up the regurgitation likely to result? Or will the child be duly beaten and told what a wretched example of original sin and unwillingness to submit to authority that they are?
Parents that insist upon slavish adherence to what has been agreed upon as good manners that force their children to consume all kinds of rotgut swill underaged taste buds and digestive tracts aren’t accustomed to should not be shocked fifty years from now when Junior or Sally are eager to toss them in the cheapest nursing home they can find and never look back.
I just might be rude. Some things I simply refuse to eat. Since you're not going to be there in the middle of the night holding my hand as I attempt to soak away a stomach cramp in hot water at 2 am, I don't really care how offended you are I didn't eat the slop you consider a culinary masterpiece that will no doubt taste as bad coming up as it did going down.
I one time remember reading a Gospel tract that the young Christian was obligated to eat whatever any authority figure put on their plate in order to prepare them for their future careers on the mission field. Newsflash: though it is a sacrilege to say so in some circles of Fundamentalist education, not everyone is called to go to the foreign mission field, especially if you can’t stand the site or smell of what the savages stick in their mouths. Besides, most of them want to come to America now anyway where we have decent tasting food.
My great grandfather use to threaten my grandmother that, if she or her siblings didn't eat something, he was going to shove it down their throats himself. So don't tell me the parents of centuries past were by default superior to the parents now.
As a society, we've gone too far into permissiveness, but neither is an overcorrection something to be desired. Treating your children with the respect and dignity is the best guarantor that they will emulate these qualities in the years and decades to come.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
In a church that claims to stand for the whole counsel of God, in a balanced presentation of marriage, shouldn't the references suggesting you are just as well off not getting married as getting married be presented as part of the same exposition as those seeming to suggest you are pursuing a course of life less than what God intended if you are not married?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
For now, "voluntary".
But mark my words.
Eventually it will be illegal to own a cellphone without one or that you will be deemed an unfit parent or potential child molester if you don't accept the upgrade the way parents are now that don't buy their kids conventional cellphones.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Some will snap what a bizarre comment to make.
But I am not the one insisting every last Old Testment regulation be implemented as civil law and Orthrodox Jewish sects do provide a bit on perspective as to how such regulations might be implemented.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
A story posted at Yahoo News detailed the steps taken in Washington, DC to prepare for a retaliatory attack on the part of Al Qaeda over the death of Osama Bin Ladin. Among the measures included increased police protection of synagogues and mosques.
What about Christian churches?
Aren’t these structures as worthy of protection?
However, they were not mentioned in the article.
If not, shouldn’t the DC government admit that they are not as concerned about any Christians that die in an attack as they are Jews or Muslims?
Those that properly recall their history will remember that one of the things that turned Bin Ladin against the United States initially was the presence of “Crusaders” in lands deemed sacred and holy by devout Muslims such as Saudi Arabia.
“Crusaders” is a term some Muslims utilize when speaking of Christians in reference to the conflicts during the Middle Ages where Roman Catholic authorities attempted to liberate the Biblical Holy Lands from Islamic control.
As such, if you wanted to strike back at an enemy that you thought was attacking your religion wouldn’t the Washington National Cathedral or the National Shrine of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception --- prominent structures admired and beloved not only by native Washingtonians but by enthusiasts of religious art across the county --- be better targets?
A fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is equal protection under the law. When a terrorist bomb explodes, the projectile shrapnel of the device can just as easily take out the lives of bystander Christians, Jews, or even Muslims.
by Frederick Meekins
Friday, May 06, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Featured in a twitter post I stumbled across was a promotional by a church promising to give $100 to every single mother that shows up at the congregation for Mother's Day.
If a family lives as some of these fundamentalist churches demand, with dad working and mom at home, they are bringing in no more income than a household headed by a single mother In many instances, single mothers are no more necessarily deprived materially than an intact single income family.
So why doesn't a church handing out $100 to every single mother also give the reward to families that have stayed together as well?
If a church plans to give $100 to every single mother on Mother's Day, do they plan to give $100 to every single father on Father's Day?
Likewise, if a pastor is going to use Father's Day to bash the shortcomings of the contemporary father, shouldn't they use Mother's Day to bash the shortcomings of the contemporary mother?
Why is anyone deserving of a reward in most instances on the basis of their failed relationship status? Jesus can forgive if you ask, but sometimes you must live with the consequences of your actions.
For example, where an associate of mine works there is a woman that has procreated multiple times with nearly as many men. Both my associate and his coworker make around the same amount, with her perhaps a bit more. So should my associate be punished because he has made proper decisions in life and as a result have to subsidize someone that has made less advantageous ones?
Perhaps on Mother's Day in churches where this kind of commemoration is taking place, singles that have not yet reproduced and couples living in the context of intact unbroken marriages should consider withholding their tithes from the collection plate for that particular week.
Scripture says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. As such, anyone feeling a tugging on their heart that they are in need of forgiveness should be welcomed.
Often it is insisted that at the foot of the cross all are equal and that one repentant sinner cannot look down on what another did before coming to Christ. If so, then do not extend a tangible reward to those that have engaged in particular behaviors while withholding it from those that have in good faith lived by the expectations of the group.
by Frederick Meekins
Eventually, everyone will be forced to wear special gadgets that will tax you for each breath you take. It will be argued that those with higher respiration rates contribute more to green house gases. This could be one of the things monitored by the Mark of the Beast.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
As soon as people start bringing their own bags to supermarkets in counties that have bag taxes, they will be screwed over for another tax & lectured how they don't give back enough to the COMMUINITY.
A leftist clergy is quoted as saying in regards to Bin Laden’s elimination that we are called to be witnesses to God’s love & mercy. Seems to me Bin Ladin was dispersed of in a more merciful manner than the rescue workers contracting illness in the rubble of the WTC. And isn’t it merciful to take out one to prevent them from killing hundreds more and aren’t we merciful by taking out this one rather than nuking all of central Asia?
Kind of tells you what a person is made of if they hold a pity party in regards to how Bin Ladin was mistreated during his elimination. The person raising these concerns is the very same extreme Reconstructionist that any other time thinks Glenn Beck should be executed as a "false prophet" along with Sabbath violators.
The death of Bin Ladin ends the war on terrorism the same way the capture of Saddam ended war in Iraq.
Now that Bin Ladin is supposedly dead, expect Qaddaffi to attempt to regain his crown as king of all terrorists.
Bin Ladin's compound is surrounded by 18 foot walls. Can't help but admire his taste in architecture and real estate.
Bin Ladin is said to have died amongst his wives and children. Given enough time,
Albert Mohler and radical homeschoolers will eventually speak more highly of this mass murderer than Christian singles that have never married.
Obama says Bin Ladin was a mass murderer of Muslims. What about the Christian and Jewish victims of Islamist terrorism?
Obama insisting that Bin Ladin is a murderer of Muslims without referencing victims of other religions will certainly assure America that the President is a Christian and not a Muslim as he insists.
Interesting news of Bin Ladin's death announced on a Communistic/occultuc holiday. Guess Bin Ladin was given up as a Beltane offering by globalist elites. An article linked to on the Drudge Report points out Hitler also declared dead on a May The dark hidden powers of this earth must demand the sacrifice of their favorites on Beltane.
Mark these words: don't know of what ideology the character will be; but 66 years from now on this very day, the world will be celebrating the death of another figure that will be considered the great blight of that era in history. Hence forward, that proclamantion shall be heralded as the Meekins Prediction.
Bin Ladin's wives taken into custody. US will likely dish out larger social security checks to them than the average American under 45 will ever see.
Bin Ladin's body was disposed of in compliance with Islamic customs. It should have been dragged down the street by a wagon pulled by pigs driven by Hooters girls and then buried in women's underwear.
If Osama really wasn't a legitimate Muslim as Obama insists, why was Bin Ladin's body treated in accordance with Islamic custom?
At least Bin Ladin had a body of dispose of. That's more than the families of 9/11 victims were given.
Wonder if the federal government was as respectful of the killed Branch Davidians or the Randy Weaver family.
If Bin Ladin is supposedly buried at sea, what proof do we have that he is really dead?
Fifty years from now, some History channel producer will make a fortune broadcasting documentaries whether or not Bin Ladin actually perished at the hands of American military personnel.
Apparently not one dumb ass in the White House realized chucking Bin Ladin overboard is going to contribute to the greatest conspiracy theory of the 21st century?
Feeding whoever it was captured quickly to the sharks certainly cuts out the possibility for independent verification.
Even in attempting to do something on behalf of the United States, Obama has to insert his nose into the rear ends of the ragheads.
I guess Daniel Pearl's and Nick Berg's severed heads were treated with all the respect due the adherents of the Western monotheistic tradtions.
Those turned off by the "celebrations" regarding Bin Ladin's demise should be asked their opinion of the Palestinians celebrations that erupted regarding 9/11.
Bin Ladin is supposedly dead. As any reader of comic books or history knows, this is just the opening chapter of the next story.
Wasn't Megatron buried at sea in the first live-action Transformers movie. Look how long that lasted. More than one alleged supervillian popped back from his alleged demise. In the 1980's G.I.Joe comic, readers though Cobra Commander had been murdered but wasn't. Lex Luthor cloned an entirely new body which he downloaded his consciousness into.
I guess a burial at sea is appropriate for Bin Ladin. He'll need all the water he can get where he's at most likely.
Bin Ladin, whom Obama insists isn't a real Muslim, was given Islamic burial at sea. Often, naval regulations forbid actual Christians from praying in the name of Christ.
If WWII era Italians had all these qualms about respecting a tyrant's body and such, they'd still be living under Mussolini's Fascism.
Shouldn't our border have been secured before removing Bin Ladin unless globalists in office are hoping the death of Bin Ladin will result in mass retaliation?
God might have loved Bin Ladin, but Bin Ladin hated both God and free society to such an extent that he was no longer worthy of the protections of either.
In pointing to the death of Bin Ladin as "an example of what Americans can do when united", social engineers are laying the conceptual framework to have stigmatized as the next Bin Ladin those that disagree with expanded welfare programs and curtailed constitutional liberties. Apart from killing terrorists, there isn't all that much Americans need to be of the same mind of in terms of being imposed by centralized authorities.
One of the lessons to learn from the Bin Ladin incident is that, given the chance, your wife will ultimately be the one to rat you out.
by Frederick Meekins