Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Ragheads Rampage Over Headrags
If they think they have it bad here, at least we have amusement parks. Their beloved Taliban even forbade the flying of kites and even the slaughter of songbirds (made by their precious God one might note) for no other reason than that such things brought joy into life.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Insinuations Candidate Slate Not Sufficiently Religious
Those that express a Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist perspective are in an uproar that it is imperative that Christians only vote for other Christians.
Some holding to this perspective even contend that only confirmed Christians should be allowed to run for public office and if you vote for someone that isn’t, even if none are running, your soul could very well be in danger of eternal damnation.
Yet there isn't a single Republican candidate that hasn't assented to at least a belief in God.
What is not often deliberately spelled out is that, if a candidate does not agree with this particular subset of the broader Evangelical spectrum nearly 100% on what in Christian thought are categorized as secondary issues, one is not considered to be a Christian at all in the eyes of this perspective’s adherents.
For example, it is not enough for a conservative presidential hopeful to pledge to stand against gay marriage.
Rather, to these fanatics, one is branded an apostate if one believes Old Testament injunctions to put homosexuals to death only applied within the context of ancient Israel and were set aside by Christ Himself when the Lord intervened at the stoning of the adulterous woman.
It must be asked, though it is doubtful they will even answer and even more likely to threaten to report you to Facebook administrators when you raise concerns about these kinds of omissions in their professed ideology, just who in a Rushdoonyian regime will decide whose belief is sincere and pure enough to be granted permission to seek elected office?
The Founding Fathers intended religion in general and Christianity in particular to exert a profound influence over American culture.
However, when the faith’s institutionalized forms end up determining who may enjoy the rights and benefits of citizenship, it has become a very pillar of the kind of tyranny that it was hoped such devotion and piety would serve as a bulwark against in the first place.
by Frederick Meekins
Some holding to this perspective even contend that only confirmed Christians should be allowed to run for public office and if you vote for someone that isn’t, even if none are running, your soul could very well be in danger of eternal damnation.
Yet there isn't a single Republican candidate that hasn't assented to at least a belief in God.
What is not often deliberately spelled out is that, if a candidate does not agree with this particular subset of the broader Evangelical spectrum nearly 100% on what in Christian thought are categorized as secondary issues, one is not considered to be a Christian at all in the eyes of this perspective’s adherents.
For example, it is not enough for a conservative presidential hopeful to pledge to stand against gay marriage.
Rather, to these fanatics, one is branded an apostate if one believes Old Testament injunctions to put homosexuals to death only applied within the context of ancient Israel and were set aside by Christ Himself when the Lord intervened at the stoning of the adulterous woman.
It must be asked, though it is doubtful they will even answer and even more likely to threaten to report you to Facebook administrators when you raise concerns about these kinds of omissions in their professed ideology, just who in a Rushdoonyian regime will decide whose belief is sincere and pure enough to be granted permission to seek elected office?
The Founding Fathers intended religion in general and Christianity in particular to exert a profound influence over American culture.
However, when the faith’s institutionalized forms end up determining who may enjoy the rights and benefits of citizenship, it has become a very pillar of the kind of tyranny that it was hoped such devotion and piety would serve as a bulwark against in the first place.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Vermin Lovers Excuse Rats From Black Death
More afoot here than a desire for accurate history.
Any other time, Leftists assure us that at best accuracy in antiquarian pursuits isn't all that important and at worst an imposition of Whites upon the world's more backwards cultures.
This is rather planting the seeds to downplay efforts to curtail rats, which PETA assure us are just as important of human children.
One can see this in regards as to how certain policies such as the prohibition of specific pesticides have rejuvenated the bed beg menace.
Eventually, one will not be allowed to refer to this episode of history as Black since one cannot retain any sinister connotations to that particular hue and cannot look at this tragedy negatively since to elites, so long as they do ranked among the victims, such mass curtailments of the excess population are to actually be seen as a positive thing.
Any other time, Leftists assure us that at best accuracy in antiquarian pursuits isn't all that important and at worst an imposition of Whites upon the world's more backwards cultures.
This is rather planting the seeds to downplay efforts to curtail rats, which PETA assure us are just as important of human children.
One can see this in regards as to how certain policies such as the prohibition of specific pesticides have rejuvenated the bed beg menace.
Eventually, one will not be allowed to refer to this episode of history as Black since one cannot retain any sinister connotations to that particular hue and cannot look at this tragedy negatively since to elites, so long as they do ranked among the victims, such mass curtailments of the excess population are to actually be seen as a positive thing.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Is Stan Lee A Greedy Old Man?
Interesting how on his scifi channel reality show years ago he kicked off on the first episode a contestant wanting to make a fortune from superheroes. Lee claimed that was not what speculative fantasy was about. I guess such idealistic restrictions are suppose to apply to everybody's bank account but his own
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Lessons In Apologetics #8: Atheism
If the Christian has no assurance that God will triumph from the way the world appears to be going, one would be better off hedging one’s bets by siding with the Devil or sitting the whole thing out all together. There are those that attempt to do just that.
Atheism is the worldview that believes that God does not exist. Those embracing this perspective tend to do so over both objective and existential reasons.
Those claiming to embrace Atheism for objective reasons often concentrate their attacks on the more scientific approaches to the existence of God such as the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument for the existence of God holds that all contingent things must have a cause and that this cause is at the minimum Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause and preferably the God of the Christian faith as expounded by Aquinas when he adapted these propositions for Christian usage. Atheists raise their hands and say hold on a moment to what they see as presumptuous conclusions.
From the Christian perspective, since God exists beyond what we perceive as time, He is sufficient or necessary to jumpstart the universe and get the temporal ball rolling. However, the Atheist has no metaphysical problem with an infinite chain of causality. Yet the laws of thermodynamics might dictate otherwise as these fundamental principles of physics hold that there is only a finite amount of energy available within a closed system.
So even though the Atheist may not have an intellectual objection to a material universe that is infinitely old, such an assumption smashes eventually against the hard wall of reality. However, seldom has that ever stopped anyone adamant about adhering to their favored delusions no matter what the evidence might say.
The next set of arguments for Atheism against belief in God center around a set of moral objections. All must confess these have crossed our minds at low points in each of our lives.
The most objective of these centers around the nature of goodness and God's relationship to it. This argument was developed by Bertrand Russell (218).
The moral disproof for God states that good must result because either God decrees it or He does not. If good is good simply because God says it is and no one can argue against Him since He is the biggest guy on the cosmic block, good is not really good since God has willed it so arbitrarily. However, if God declares something good because of its own inherent nature or compliance with a standard beyond Himself, doesn't that mean that the standard rather than God is ultimate? Thus, at best, God ends up being demoted to the status of Plato's less than omnipotent demiurge.
Geisler counters, though, that this is really putting the ethical cart before the theistic horse. Geisler writes, "Rather than flowing from God's arbitrary will, the moral law may be seen as rooted in God's unchangeably good and loving nature, then the apparent dilemma is resolved (226).” Thus, good is something God is rather than something God decides or does. This brings to mind verses such as John 8:58 where God proclaims “Before Abraham was, I am.”
Other moral objections to the existence of God are a bit less ethereal and considerably more visceral and marked by the pain those leveling them have experienced or witnessed living here in an obviously fallen world. One such objection raised by Albert Camus in The Plague uses the backdrop of an epidemic to make the point that theism is inherently anti-humanitarian. The story posits the dichotomy that, if one assists the suffering, one is siding against God by interfering with the work of His judgment, and if one wants to be in His will and not stand in His way, one is therefore opposed to human well being (221).
Other related objections to God over the problem of evil dismiss His existence all together. A number of Atheists deny the existence of God on the grounds that, because people often suffer disproportionately to what they have done wrong, an all powerful and all good God does not exist. It is argued a God possessing these attributes would not allow evil. But because evil is rampant, that is proof that either God is not all powerful and cannot do anything about evil or that He is all powerful but does not do anything about the evil in the world because He is not good enough to care.
Though it is not always a comfort to someone that has befallen an overwhelming tragedy such as the murder of a loved one, the existence of evil does not by default disprove the existence of God. It does, however, toss the apologetic ball into the theist's court to provide a plausible reason as to why an all-powerful and all-good God would allow suffering to exist.
Known as "theodicy", these explanations attempt to reconcile the simultaneous existence of both God and evil. It is at this point that the theist must counter claim that the evil in the world is solvable or redeemable. The Christian especially can point out that God has indeed done something about the evil by sending His only begotten Son into the world to do something about this tragedy in the most personable of ways.
If the Atheist presses this objection too vigorously, the wily apologist ought to turn the argument back on his unbelieving compatriot. To even make the claim that God does not exist, because the world is not as good as we think it would be if He really did, is actually an indirect argument that He really does.
For to argue that things are not good enough is to assume some kind of standard exists beyond the earthly fray we find ourselves in. If this material universe was all there ever was, the highest good we could ever know is what we see around us and we’d be unable to criticize anything as the “is” automatically becomes the “ought” in such a context.
Yet there is a deep dissatisfaction that compels most human souls onward towards a better world. Romans 2:14-15 says, “...when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..."
Secondly, Atheists claiming disbelief in God because, in their view, He has not done enough to stop or prevent suffering in the world often want to have things both ways. These theophobes not only deny God over the imperfections they see in the world but then hypothesize that, if God existed, man would not be free because human freedom would be, as Geisler puts it, "circumscribed by his divine determination (231)."
However, it is because God loves us so much and respects us as individuals that in the vast majority of instances He does not directly interfere with most actions but rather permits their outcome to propel the world onward to His ultimate plan for all of His creation. Geisler writes, "If love is persuasive but never coercive, then allowing men to freely determine their own destiny would seem to be the loving way to make them (231)."
Unfortunately, some are in such a state of rebellion against God that they take this animus out on others. Foremost among such deeds would no doubt rank murder.
Some would respond that, if God really loved the innocent, He would intervene to prevent this crime. However, as C.S. Lewis hypothesizes in The Problem Of Pain, for our own benefit God has created a world that operates in the vast majority of instances by a series of repeatable and verifiable principles.
For example, according to this moral "steady-state theory", I am able to pick up a knife to either slice a steak or slit my neighbor's throat for the purposes of providing man with a rational world where we will not go mad. Faced with such, the Christian must embrace Romans 8:28 as a comfort in a world that often does not seem fair to our finite minds.
By Frederick Meekins
Atheism is the worldview that believes that God does not exist. Those embracing this perspective tend to do so over both objective and existential reasons.
Those claiming to embrace Atheism for objective reasons often concentrate their attacks on the more scientific approaches to the existence of God such as the cosmological argument. The cosmological argument for the existence of God holds that all contingent things must have a cause and that this cause is at the minimum Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause and preferably the God of the Christian faith as expounded by Aquinas when he adapted these propositions for Christian usage. Atheists raise their hands and say hold on a moment to what they see as presumptuous conclusions.
From the Christian perspective, since God exists beyond what we perceive as time, He is sufficient or necessary to jumpstart the universe and get the temporal ball rolling. However, the Atheist has no metaphysical problem with an infinite chain of causality. Yet the laws of thermodynamics might dictate otherwise as these fundamental principles of physics hold that there is only a finite amount of energy available within a closed system.
So even though the Atheist may not have an intellectual objection to a material universe that is infinitely old, such an assumption smashes eventually against the hard wall of reality. However, seldom has that ever stopped anyone adamant about adhering to their favored delusions no matter what the evidence might say.
The next set of arguments for Atheism against belief in God center around a set of moral objections. All must confess these have crossed our minds at low points in each of our lives.
The most objective of these centers around the nature of goodness and God's relationship to it. This argument was developed by Bertrand Russell (218).
The moral disproof for God states that good must result because either God decrees it or He does not. If good is good simply because God says it is and no one can argue against Him since He is the biggest guy on the cosmic block, good is not really good since God has willed it so arbitrarily. However, if God declares something good because of its own inherent nature or compliance with a standard beyond Himself, doesn't that mean that the standard rather than God is ultimate? Thus, at best, God ends up being demoted to the status of Plato's less than omnipotent demiurge.
Geisler counters, though, that this is really putting the ethical cart before the theistic horse. Geisler writes, "Rather than flowing from God's arbitrary will, the moral law may be seen as rooted in God's unchangeably good and loving nature, then the apparent dilemma is resolved (226).” Thus, good is something God is rather than something God decides or does. This brings to mind verses such as John 8:58 where God proclaims “Before Abraham was, I am.”
Other moral objections to the existence of God are a bit less ethereal and considerably more visceral and marked by the pain those leveling them have experienced or witnessed living here in an obviously fallen world. One such objection raised by Albert Camus in The Plague uses the backdrop of an epidemic to make the point that theism is inherently anti-humanitarian. The story posits the dichotomy that, if one assists the suffering, one is siding against God by interfering with the work of His judgment, and if one wants to be in His will and not stand in His way, one is therefore opposed to human well being (221).
Other related objections to God over the problem of evil dismiss His existence all together. A number of Atheists deny the existence of God on the grounds that, because people often suffer disproportionately to what they have done wrong, an all powerful and all good God does not exist. It is argued a God possessing these attributes would not allow evil. But because evil is rampant, that is proof that either God is not all powerful and cannot do anything about evil or that He is all powerful but does not do anything about the evil in the world because He is not good enough to care.
Though it is not always a comfort to someone that has befallen an overwhelming tragedy such as the murder of a loved one, the existence of evil does not by default disprove the existence of God. It does, however, toss the apologetic ball into the theist's court to provide a plausible reason as to why an all-powerful and all-good God would allow suffering to exist.
Known as "theodicy", these explanations attempt to reconcile the simultaneous existence of both God and evil. It is at this point that the theist must counter claim that the evil in the world is solvable or redeemable. The Christian especially can point out that God has indeed done something about the evil by sending His only begotten Son into the world to do something about this tragedy in the most personable of ways.
If the Atheist presses this objection too vigorously, the wily apologist ought to turn the argument back on his unbelieving compatriot. To even make the claim that God does not exist, because the world is not as good as we think it would be if He really did, is actually an indirect argument that He really does.
For to argue that things are not good enough is to assume some kind of standard exists beyond the earthly fray we find ourselves in. If this material universe was all there ever was, the highest good we could ever know is what we see around us and we’d be unable to criticize anything as the “is” automatically becomes the “ought” in such a context.
Yet there is a deep dissatisfaction that compels most human souls onward towards a better world. Romans 2:14-15 says, “...when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..."
Secondly, Atheists claiming disbelief in God because, in their view, He has not done enough to stop or prevent suffering in the world often want to have things both ways. These theophobes not only deny God over the imperfections they see in the world but then hypothesize that, if God existed, man would not be free because human freedom would be, as Geisler puts it, "circumscribed by his divine determination (231)."
However, it is because God loves us so much and respects us as individuals that in the vast majority of instances He does not directly interfere with most actions but rather permits their outcome to propel the world onward to His ultimate plan for all of His creation. Geisler writes, "If love is persuasive but never coercive, then allowing men to freely determine their own destiny would seem to be the loving way to make them (231)."
Unfortunately, some are in such a state of rebellion against God that they take this animus out on others. Foremost among such deeds would no doubt rank murder.
Some would respond that, if God really loved the innocent, He would intervene to prevent this crime. However, as C.S. Lewis hypothesizes in The Problem Of Pain, for our own benefit God has created a world that operates in the vast majority of instances by a series of repeatable and verifiable principles.
For example, according to this moral "steady-state theory", I am able to pick up a knife to either slice a steak or slit my neighbor's throat for the purposes of providing man with a rational world where we will not go mad. Faced with such, the Christian must embrace Romans 8:28 as a comfort in a world that often does not seem fair to our finite minds.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Obama Denounces Blogs, Calls For Centralized Media
What the President really means when he laments Americans don't listen to one another anymore is that insufficient numbers have failed to pledge unwavoring loyalty to him as the Psuedomessiah.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
Krugman Insinuates Staged Extraterrestrial Invasion Could End Economic Slump
Must also ask how many innocents would be "eliminated" to pull off this ruse and what other civil liberties would be curtailed in the process.
Also, notice how, when this "respected" public intellectual suggests this, he is applauded as a first rate mind.
But if Jesse Ventura or Alex Jones brought this up, they would be denounced as laughingstocks.
Also, notice how, when this "respected" public intellectual suggests this, he is applauded as a first rate mind.
But if Jesse Ventura or Alex Jones brought this up, they would be denounced as laughingstocks.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
If the Tea Party is at fault for the financial downgrade for calling attention to the debt crisis, does that mean NOW or even the women reporting the crimes to police are at fault for domestic violence in America? So should the real villains of history be those that expose infamous atrocities rather than commit them? If the preservation of the status quo is the highest good, shouldn't we instead have Bull Connor Day in the middle of January or herald the bus driver that told Rosa Parks to get to the back of the bus?
According to home school activist Kevin Swanson, what is particularly offensive about True Grit was that the protagonist did not run like a mindless zombie to have her every decision given the OK by her pastor and that in the end scene she never got married. In the eyes radical homeschoolers, one's Christianity is not as valid if you do not marry and reproduce like a rabbit stoned on Viagra.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Fox Infodame Not So Free-Market After All
Megyn Kelly thinks other advanced Western countries are so wonderful in terms of expansive maternity benefits, perhaps she should immigrate to one of these social democracies where the Muslims have about taken over and enacted laws to punish journalists like her that expose practices such as so-called "honor killings".
Unless they are the father of the baby, why should employers be required to pick up the tab beyond standard sick leave if you decide to procreate?
If Megyn Kelly really made her baby a top priority as she insists in claiming that a quarter of a year is supposedly essential to facilitate bonding between mother and child, perhaps she should resign her correspondent position aIl together in order to be a stay-at-home mom.
It's not like she's the type to have married a low-paid working slob whose crack hangs out when he bends over and couldn't afford to pursue a calling as a domestic engineer.
Though he backed down when confronted, Mike Gallagher is to be commended for suggesting that such long term maternity leave might be a racket.
Most are too afraid that they won't be getting sex anymore or labeled with domestic assault allegations for even daring to speak critically on the matter.
by Frederick Meekins
Unless they are the father of the baby, why should employers be required to pick up the tab beyond standard sick leave if you decide to procreate?
If Megyn Kelly really made her baby a top priority as she insists in claiming that a quarter of a year is supposedly essential to facilitate bonding between mother and child, perhaps she should resign her correspondent position aIl together in order to be a stay-at-home mom.
It's not like she's the type to have married a low-paid working slob whose crack hangs out when he bends over and couldn't afford to pursue a calling as a domestic engineer.
Though he backed down when confronted, Mike Gallagher is to be commended for suggesting that such long term maternity leave might be a racket.
Most are too afraid that they won't be getting sex anymore or labeled with domestic assault allegations for even daring to speak critically on the matter.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 08, 2011
Friday, August 05, 2011
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
The Friendly Neighborhood Mulatto Man
Turning Spider-Man into a half-Black and half-Hispanic individual is being justified on the grounds of opening up whole new narrative possibilities.
In other words, the plight of a studious White lad trying to look after his widowed Aunt just isn't as exciting as it use to be.
As leftist as Marvel Comics is becoming, in their mind it would probably be considered speciesist now for humanity to deny Galactus the opportunity to consume the Earth the next time he gets hungry.
Those opposed to the change in Spider-Man's ethnic background will be denounced as racist.
However, aren't those making the change the one's wallowing in ethnicity since they are the ones saying that a White wall-crawler isn't good enough in light of supposed advances in diversity though it is probably a safe bet to assume that the famed Marvel Bullpen is still predominately non-minority in terms of those weaving these illustrated adventures.
Would the very same tolerancemongers excited regarding the creative possibilities that a non-White Spider-Man opens up be as enthusiastic regarding a non-Black Fat Albert?
by Frederick Meekins
In other words, the plight of a studious White lad trying to look after his widowed Aunt just isn't as exciting as it use to be.
As leftist as Marvel Comics is becoming, in their mind it would probably be considered speciesist now for humanity to deny Galactus the opportunity to consume the Earth the next time he gets hungry.
Those opposed to the change in Spider-Man's ethnic background will be denounced as racist.
However, aren't those making the change the one's wallowing in ethnicity since they are the ones saying that a White wall-crawler isn't good enough in light of supposed advances in diversity though it is probably a safe bet to assume that the famed Marvel Bullpen is still predominately non-minority in terms of those weaving these illustrated adventures.
Would the very same tolerancemongers excited regarding the creative possibilities that a non-White Spider-Man opens up be as enthusiastic regarding a non-Black Fat Albert?
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)