Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
Why does O’Reilly deem it necessary to constantly remind that the pederast-sympathizing judge that let a pedophile off the hook with a 30 day jail sentence is the grandson of some football player? Unless they are in the Sandusky family tree, does it have any bearing on the case?
Thursday, August 29, 2013
White House Holds Forum For Those That Can't Make Up Mind What Kinds Of Privates They Like To Fondle
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Spurgeon remarked that those content to be a newspaper editor, a grocer, a doctor or a king rather than become a minister did not possess the fullness of the spirit of God. But doesn't God need solid Christians in these trades and professions as well? Isn't one edging away from the oasis of sound doctrine towards the wastelands of gnosticism by downplaying the needs each of these divisions of labor specialize in addressing? The preacher is going to do you little good if you don't have the physical strength to listen to his message (these needs being met by the grocer and the doctor) and you aren't going to know whether or not it's safe to go to church without the magistrate to keep the bandits at bay and the media to expose when the government has itself become the bandit.
Martin Luther King. Jr. was not the flawless individual he is made out to be by certain segments of the American population. A number of his associations, life choices, and professed beliefs were at times highly questionable. However, to graft together the countenances of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Trayvon Martin into a single image plastered on a t-shirt as if they are of equal stature is a step too far. In his brief 39 years, Martin Luther King earned a Bachelor of Art in Sociology, a Bachelor of Divinity, and a PhD in Systematic Theology while also pastoring a church and composing numerous rhetorical works. Though academic achievement is not necessarily a determining measure of individual character, Trayvon Martin wasn’t even able to keep his nose clean enough to prevent from being kicked out of high school.
The statist deadbeats and racial collectivists gathering in the nation's capital to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech have no more intention of judging someone by the content of their character rather than the color of skin than the average Klansman.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Police assure that the beating death of 88 year old Delbert Bolton had nothing whatsoever to do with race. And this makes Delbert Bolton any less dead how? To justify the lavish salaries and expense accounts of consultant diversitymongers, it is constantly pounded into our heads about institutional racism. This is the perceptual malady where we could be holding to prejudiced and biased assumptions and not even realize it. I guess these scumbags singled out an elderly white man thinking he would be able to put up a fair fight. Maybe they had such respect for the elderly that they could not bear the thought of the targeted individual enduring the deprivations of the Obama healthcare plan to be inflicted upon the chronologically advanced in the years to come. So the duo must have decided to bestow the gift and blessing of an unsolicited mercy killing.
Given that Mohler's program is primarily available through this particular medium, it is ironic that he would raise this complaint.
Should the discerning Christian cut back on this renowned seminarian's program if it is not so much quality of the screen time we are to be concerned with rather than quality?
As part of his argument, Mohler quotes from theologian Jacques Ellul who argued that, once a technology enters our lives, it begins to take them over.
Would Dr. Mohler have made such a complaint about the printing press and the revolution in information made available by the proliferation of economically approved.
Back then, it was also argued that works disseminated in that fashion would undermine authorities and put knowledge in the hands of those not deemed qualified to handle it.
But most importantly, without the printed word, would the Protestantism (of which Albert Mohler is one of the movement's most prominent contemporary spokesmen and thinkers) have blossomed into a viable expression of the Christian tradition?
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Hispanosupremacists Declare Immigration Victory Because White Conservatives Less Likely To Rampage In The Streets
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
As justification, the clergyman claims Jesus referenced his father but that this does not necessarily mean God.
Then who exactly is the father of Jesus?
Was it the blond-haired, blue-eyed Germanic Roman solider stationed in Palestine as conjectured by one of the translators of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible?
Is the baby-daddy of the Christ Child one of the saucer men as hypothesized by the Chariot of The Gods theory?
The Bible doesn't speak much in favor of gay marriage and says even less about gun control.
However, that certainly hasn't prevented Dean Hall from often commenting enthusiastically on behalf of these causes trendy among leftists.
One of the most profound questions anyone will ever answer was originally raised by Jesus and directed towards His Disciples when He asked who did they say that He was.
If one responds with anything but the Son of God and second person of the Trinity yet has made Christian ministry one's occupational vocation, the only purpose for having done so is to drag as many as possible along with you into the pits of Hell.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
For the record, I do not think they are.
Another question to ask, is if so bad, why don't Fundamentalists attempt providing a speculative narrative alternative.
Click On The Headline
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Other than to subtly manipulate viewers into accepting the alternative lifestyle, was their any other purpose to interject the seeds of a budding lesbian relationship in NBC's "Siberia" only to have one of the characters mysteriously disappear in nearly the next episode?
There is blame to spread around to both sides. However, it is interesting that the Muslim Brotherhood goes around destroying Christian orphanages, churches, and monasteries dating back centuries or even millennia and the world community chastises the Egyptian military to moderate its response.
For example, it is probably best for those holding elected, ecclesiastical, or professional office to adorn themselves worthy of the part as they execute their duties.
However, it does not follow that the remainder of us should be similarly miserable if we are not enjoying the same degree of prestige, payment or opportunity.
Relatedly, sometimes those latching onto this complaint insist one can no longer distinguish between men and women in contemporary America.
Yet other than assorted gays, certain men with long hair, and women with eating disorders in serious need of treatment, it is not that difficult to tell the difference between a man and woman in a pair of jeans or slacks.
If solving that mystery stumps you, perhaps one ought to spend a little less time in scholastic isolation and instead study the intricacies of the human form.
In a Facebook exchange regarding this issue of attire in the church, for suggesting that there is nothing wrong with the average attender adorning themselves a bit more casually while it is probably better for the clergy to dress a bit more solemnly, it was hinted at that I was undermining my usual position of vocational equality.
But foremostly, the validity of that allegation depends on what is meant by equality.
The pastor is to lead the order of service within the church.
That's why one does not shout out how full of it many of them are in the middle of the service.
However, the pastor is not in charge of my home or what goes on in my head.
That is why in my vocation as a critic under the First Amendment why I am able to convey my findings and conclusions to a broader audience through social media upon my return home.
It was also observed that most dress better for work or a restaurant than they do for church.
However, those particular places have established rules regarding what one must wear if one does not want one’s access to such places restricted or rescinded.
Unless one is on its administrative staff, such regulations do not normally exist for a house of worship.
Do we want to start barring those not deemed “good enough” in terms of outer formality from entering the house of God?
These days, so long as the “strategic areas” of the anatomy are concealed, shouldn’t we just be glad someone shows up at all in light of all the other options competing for someone’s time and attention?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, August 16, 2013
In response to a Time Magazine article about choosing to be childless, home school activist Kevin Swanson heaps condemnation and judgment upon those having done so for any variety of reasons. His sect is particularly harsh on a regular basis upon those not having spawned in their late teens or early 20’s. But is it really proper to heap guilt upon people for circumstances or inclinations beyond their control? One would assume God would want the individual to be somewhat selective with whom one decides to breed. Shouldn’t you at least love the person? There is no pleasing those of the Swansonite mentality. They harangue just about up to the point of revoking the status of Christian from those not yielding to their fanatical agenda but would rain down even hotter hell fire upon those seeking a mate beyond the boundaries of their borderline cult. Might it be best in some circumstances for those not suited in terms of personality and occupational status to refrain from having children rather than to end up in a situation where neither parent nor child would be particularly happy? Or perhaps the purpose of harping on this by certain homeschool factions is to drag the remainder of Christendom down to their particular level of misery and dissatisfaction.
A complaint has been enunciated that most dress better for work or a restaurant than they do for church. However, those particular places have established rules regarding what one must wear if one does not want one’s access to such places restricted or rescinded. Unless one is on its administrative staff, such does not normally exist for a house of worship. Do we want to start barring those not deemed “good enough” in terms of outer formality from entering the house of God? These days, so long as the “strategic areas” of the anatomy are concealed, shouldn’t we just be glad someone shows up at all in light of all the other options available for someone’s time and attention?
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
In a critique of Millennials and Christianity, it was observed that people today live their lives in a manner cognizant of what it is they want to reveal about themselves through social media. But how is that all that different than these Amish who react to a matter not by asking whether something is right or wrong but rather out of concern over what the COMMUNITY might have to say about it? Or, to place the issue in a more contemporary context more people can relate to, what Christian hasn’t been less than totally forthcoming as to exactly why they weren’t in the service the previous week or what exactly it was they watched on television the night before?
In a discussion of the Reformation, a fanatic homeschooler mocked a bishop from around that period that believed the way to resolve the junebug infestation of his diocese was to hold a procession and then to excommunicate the offending insects. When you come down to it, how was that idea any worse than the notion promoted by this very same pastor and activist that a number of Colorado residents have lost their homes in wildfires because of gay marriage being legalized in that state? No proof has been provided that these victims played a governmental role in authorizing this disputed matrimonial practice.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
A number of Christians have made it a part of their calling to point out the errors of figures such as C.S. Lewis and Charles Finney. From the extent of the fuss made, one could conclude that these influential thinkers shouldn’t even be considered believers at all. Do those registering these complaints ever address the deficiencies in how the application of what is interpreted to be Biblical or orthodox Christianity gave room for those of deficient theologies to rise to prominence? For example, do those warning against Charles Finney ever speak out against the cold aloofness and detachment that would drive some to embrace the excesses of revivalism? Do the critics of C.S. Lewis ever encourage fellow Christians to try their own hands at speculative literature such as science fiction and fantasy?
Monday, August 12, 2013
A study of studies conducted by a University of Rochester research team concludes more intelligent people tend to be atheists while the dimwitted tend to adopt a religious outlook. However, has all of this brainpower enabled the intelligent to develop a way to extinguish the burn of Hellfire in the Afterlife?
In regards to a column I posted on evolution, it was commented “We need to be a little wiser in dealing with these issues.” That usually translates as that we should not address the issue at all unless one has diluted a Christian response on matters such as these to the point where it it is indistinguishable from standard modernism or postmodernism.
Will Holder Release Drug-Crazed Demoniacs He Won't Let You Defend Yourself Against Onto America's Streets?
Does Judge Ruling "Messiah" An Inappropriate Name Intend To Comment On All The Hispanics Named "Jesus" & Foreigners Named "Muhammad"?
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Even Darwin himself is alleged to have relented that his theory would ultimately be proven or discarded on the basis of such geological evidence.
For well over a century now, those wanting to extol what passes for education over and above commonsense have attempted to elaborate any number of conceptual bypasses around the 800 pound subhuman hominid in the room. An article in the May 2011 edition of Discover Magazine makes such an attempt by positioning that we ourselves are the transitional forms or at least what's left over of them in terms of primate evolution.
No longer are we to think of ourselves in terms of being exclusively modern homo sapiens. Rather we are to view ourselves as the genetic composites of previous ancestors such as Neanderthals and those other creatures reminiscent of Chaka from Land of the Lost.
This theory is put forward as an attempt to silence the critics of naturalistic evolution.
Yet the hypothesis ends up raising a number of questions that reveal just what one has to ignore and overlook in order to accept this particular narrative's attempt to account for the origins of man.
Foremost, if other higher order hominids were eventually wiped out or disappeared because they interbred increasingly with what we would recognize as human beings, why wouldn't these alleged ancestors we are more reluctant to embrace as part of our own kind, if they are able to produce a fecund offspring as a result of copulation through mating, be considered fellow human beings?
For is not the history of Anthropology literally littered with the corpses of people thought to be of the status of less than fully human? I recall Ken Ham one time claiming that at one point in the 1800's Australian Aborigines were harvested as research specimens.
Even when these remains are uncovered as part of legitimate research and excavation, it must be asked if a number of these conclusions arrived at are really inherent to the evidence or are active imaginations reading back into the data what these researchers instead intensely want to see.
For if Neanderthals could interbreed with run of the mill human beings to the point where certain evolutionary theorists are insisting that we ourselves are partially Neanderthal, aren't Neanderthals just anther racial or ethnic group?
Researcher Jack Cuozzo hypothesized in “Buried Alive:The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man” that Neanderthals may have been the extremely aged or the diseased suffering from degenerative bone conditions similar to arthritis. For daring to proffer such a conjecture foremost proponents of inquiry and knowledge resorted to intimidation and threats of violence for presenting such an unconventional perspective.
By downplaying distinctions between human beings and what were at one time categorized as species preceding us along the chain of primatology obviously nothing more than glorified apes, radical evolutionists hope to further erode the preconceived boundaries between the species for the purposes of biological manipulative amalgamation.
Several years ago, I posted a column about Darwinistic propaganda speculating that in prehistoric times that the genetic boundaries might not have been as set in stone with jungle fever taking on a connotation that might shock those of us entrapped by a morality that frowns upon transpecies romance. Sophisticates of the scientific establishment easily dismiss bloggers for being out of touch and not playing with a full deck. However, seldom will they speak out against media mouthpieces allied in the cause of foisting a revolutionary secularism upon the nation such as The New Republic. On the cover of the April 23, 2008 issue was a photo that bordered on the creepy. Depicted was a chimpanzee gazing dreamily off into the sky. However, that was not the truly disturbing aspect.
For as the chimp looked to the sky, tucked beneath his arm was a human female. However, this was not the embrace of a zookeeper showing a little affection to one of her charges or like one would share with a pet. Rather, from the depiction, one gets more of the impression that these two are somehow lovers.
The look on the woman's face with head tilted back with her eyes shut and her hand intertwined with the paw of the chimp causes one to wonder if the duo might go swinging in the trees together a bit later if one gets the drift.
Some might dismiss such shock as the rantings of a prude with too much time on their hands. However, numerous credentialed scientists have come out speculating as to the possibility of a human/chimp hybrid as mankind's technical expertise continues to advance while moral expertise among the overly educated continues to atrophy.
According to an article in Wired Magazine titled “Science Without Limits”, such a primate hybridization program was suggested by renowned evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould. Categorizing the experiment as “the most potentially interesting and ethically unacceptable experiment I could imagine”, Gould speculated such a hybrid would theoretically shed light on how the retention of juvenile characteristics in chimpanzees led to the rise of human beings. That is if one believes in that sort of hooey.
The Wired article insists such an endeavor would not be as outlandish as it sounds. Research conducted with baboons and rhesus monkeys suggests that given genetic similarities such an undertaking might be biologically feasible. Such a creature could be brought into existence through the techniques of invitrofertilization and placed within a human surrogate.
Proverbs 8:36 teaches that those that hate God love death. That not only applies to the individual existential death that comes to mind when contemplating that term horrid to all people of goodwill. It also applies to the broader obliteration of our species that will result from the failure to properly recognize those distinctions that set mankind above his fellow creatures in the natural order below.
By Frederick Meekins