Thursday, July 30, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
At best, according to White, such is merely the presentation of an historical event even if integral to the Gospel. As justification, White invoked the Apostle Paul whom White alleges did not rehash these events but went on to emphasize Christ crucified and risen as the Savior of the world.
St. Francis is attributed with saying preach the Gospel and if you must use words. Though with the anti-Catholic attitude often elicited in the consideration of this drama, it is doubtful his admonition will be positively considered.
An important question to consider here is what is this pastor really concerned about. At times, it sounds primarily to be about the job security of the professional clergy and their relevance in the context of the missiological encounter.
No balanced person in favor of the series is saying that exposure to the drama is all that is required to drag the soteriological ball into the end zone of salvation.
If God did not intend our faith to be founded on a basis of history, why were we given the Gospels? Perhaps of even greater curiosity would be why bother with vast stretches of the Old Testament at all?
For while many Christians insist that they abide by all of Scripture, they'd probably tell you that while scarfing down pork barbecue with a big mess of crabs.
Pastor White insists that, in terms of outreach, the believer is better off going to one's neighbor and sharing what Christ has done in your life.
That might have been an effective approach in a previous era. However, for better or worse, this is an era where the visual will likely have as much impact on the individual as the conversationally verbal.
Furthermore, I am not particularly all that interested in what Jesus has allegedly done for you per say, especially if there is little chance of distinguishing that from transient indigestion (the old Mormon burning in the bosom) or fluctuating biochemistry.
I for one, if I was an unbeliever, would be more concerned if the objective historical accounts detailing the Crucifixion and Resurrection actually happened and the conclusions drawn by the eyewitnesses and their immediate contemporaries universally binding irrespective of ones temporal circumstances.
In his exposition, Pastor White asserted that dramatic presentation of these events are just so problematic in that the possibility exists for the director, playwrite, or screenwriter to leave things out or to embellish that which ought to be downplayed.
But isn't that also true of sermons and testimonies as well?
What pastor hasn't invoked Scripture in ways to buttress their own opinion or interpretation to appear as if it was handed down at Sinai as part of the stone tablets?
Perhaps an even greater danger are those eagerly plying the techniques of the “Look What Jesus Has Done For Me” School Of Evangelism.
That approach might be able to draw in a number of the hurting.
But sometimes those accounts are so fanciful that a fledgling faith or even one that is longstanding could suffer profound harm if the individual exposed to these stories does not experience the intervention of God in such a tangibly overpowering or life-altering manner.
Though a single sin is sufficient to alienate the individual from God for eternity, not everyone's life was as screwed up as the average drug addict, wife beater, or pornstar.
Granted, those that have not fallen into these temptations should not go around like the proud Pharisee displaying for applause how grateful they are that they are not like other men.
But that said, shouldn't the church also be just as cautious in the other extreme that lavishes increasing rewards and benefits such as book deals and speaking engagements upon the repentant reprobate that can craft the most titillating tale of carnality and debauchery provided Jesus rushes in at the last second to rescue to rescue the teller from utter damnation?
With the brand of Christianity most openly opposed to the AD Miniseries, there is no winning. Such critics seem to enjoy playing an unending game of vocational gotcha in condemnation of those not part of the ministerial in crowd.
For example, it is claimed rightfully so that all talents should be utilized in honor of the Lord and for the furtherance of His kingdom in pursuit of the lost.
However, as soon as a believer or even those inclined to a traditional brand of spirituality attempt to do so through a modality or medium that might be morally acceptable but which might not be suited for a traditional church service, these hypertraditionalists rank among the first to poopoo such artistic efforts.
Pastor Randy White in the broadcast went out of his way to denigrate the accompanying DVD and online studies released in conjunction with the miniseries.
He insisted that the true pastor needs nothing more than his Bible, and not the Internet, to prepare a sufficient sermon addressing these kinds of matters.
Interestingly, was it not the Internet that Pastor White turned to to warn those beyond the boundaries of his own congregation of the allure of seductive entertainments?
In criticism of the AD miniseries, often those the most rigorously opposed have seemed to have more to say about those either producing or promoting the drama than about the actual contents of the narrative.
For example, of particular concern is not only the Roman Catholicism of Roma Downey but that the particular strand that she is an adherent of borders upon the New Age in terms of its beliefs and practice.
But ought the primary concern to be instead the extent to which these might have infiltrated the dramatic presentation?
Pastor White and the Standing For The Truth hosts were noticeably critical of reputable Evangelicals that decided to promote or endorse the miniseries.
Particular ire was directed at pastor and Christian broadcaster David Jeremiah.
White insisted that any good David Jeremiah might have accomplished is undermined and perhaps even nullified by the questionable alliances and affiliations promoting this production.
Does this also apply to Pastor White in terms of his questionable affiliations as well?
At his website, Pastor White admits to being a Southern Baptist though a disgruntled one.
Does he not trust God enough to come out of and to be ye separate if that is the advice he seems to bestow upon everybody else?
Admittedly, the AD miniseries was far from perfect.
However, in this day where the culture is declining more and more to resemble the era in which this disputed narrative takes place, one would think certain Evangelicals would be a bit more pleased that there are a few in the entertainment industry at least willing to consider the only cure for this spreading decadence even if they do not agree to the details around the edges.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, July 27, 2015
That raises a number of observations.
I'm not much of a Huckabee fan.
I possess an aversion to those that insist that the government should track the weight of your children in the name of national security when they themselves possess progeny pushing the 300 pound mark.
However, according to these pastors, are we to take away the impression that whether or not we attempt something should be determined by standards of earthly success?
Secondly, which of the candidates isn't running for some degree of recognition?
What in life isn't done in pursuit of that if only from one other person or even from God Almighty?
When you come down to it, one of the primary reasons people reproduce is so that their name will continue on after they are dead.
Name recognition, in part, is why many get involved in ministry.
Sure, there is the desire to spread the Gospel.
But doesn't even this church posting the comments in question have its name attached as well as those of the participating pastors?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 24, 2015
Previously, the leadership of this congregation in the heart of Dixie came out firmly against the Confederate Flag.
However, this headlong march into a globalist progressivism did not stop there.
For the pastor, who doesn't seem to mind shoving mention of his distinguished military career in your face when he thinks the invocation of such should earn him some due deference, mentioned that he was not too keen on Christians swearing allegiance to the American flag either.
In his tirade, the minister propagated the impression that Old Glory does not necessarily represent the higher values upon which the nation rests but rather whatever regime might be holding power at any given moment.
But even Christians now trying to get their priorities in order while retaining a place of honor for the American flag but in subordination to the Christian flag are not immune from this particular church's derision and contempt.
In the analysis of a church that flies the Christian flag in this manner, it was snorted that doing so might cause offense and that God does not need a flag.
Should an activist Jew travel by Pastor Sean Harris' church and not want to be bothered by the sight of a steeple, should his congregation rush to take that symbol down as well to eagerly comply with the tyranny closing in around them?
After all, God doesn't require a steeple either.
There is nothing in Scripture about churches holding expansive properties rivaling some shopping centers or even small amusement parks in size.
God is perfectly fine with small bands meeting in tiny churches or even catacombs.
Does that mean Pastor Harris and his dutiful sidekicks are going to gleefully applaud the seizure of their building for the establishment of an atheist museum as occurred in the case of the former Soviet Union or perhaps the erection of a gay pride center which might be more fitting in light of the particular variety of carnality and licentious unbelief epidemic to this particular moment in history?
One of the assistant pastors confessed that he was not comfortable pledging to a Christian flag either.
Then shouldn't we be leery of making all sorts of church membership vows and pledges when these are mentioned no where in the pages of Scripture?
Perhaps one of the most interesting things about a church that is taking such a public stance against the American flag is that on its SermonAudio profile page there is a picture of that church building where there isn't simply a single tasteful flagpole with the national ensign flying in front of the church but rather at least four or five American flags.
It was argued in the exposition in condemnation of flags that a sanctuary should be laid out and adorned in such a fashion that a Christian from a foreign land (Palestine was given as an example) would not be offended by any potential Americana such as the flag.
Christian or not, if a Palestinian comes into an American church and gets jacked out of shape at explicitly American paraphernalia, he can slink back to his Third World terrorist-sympathizer excrement pile.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 23, 2015
And the problem is?
Most people are awake between 12 and 18 hours per day.
Does all of that time need to be focused on direct Bible study or related religious exercises?
This is an especially valid question if they are going to get a big dose of church the next day anyway?
It was suggested in this Christian podcast that, if children talk more about Jurassic World than the “things of God”, this is possibly a symptom that they might be slipping into idolatry.
But could it also be that God designed children to be more fascinated by dinosaurs than potluck suppers or lengthy meditative expositions where they are ordered to sit with heads bowed and eyes closed pretending to have a conversation where honestly the deity does not respond directly?
Call me a heathen, but a T-rex battling it out with a velociraptor is just more exciting than a lengthy exposition on someone's mechanic's accountant's taxidermist's bunion removal.
By Frederick Meekins
Southern Baptist Pastor Stands In Defense Of The Confederate Flag Despite The Convention’s Leadership
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Yet, in the past, a number of commencement addresses have provided a bit of an historical snapshot into the perspectives of the foremost leaders and thinkers of the respective time. Perhaps the most prominent that comes to mind is none other than Winston Churchill's describing the advancement of the Soviet bloc across Europe as an Iron Curtain.
Likewise, though for considerably less auspicious reasons, First Lady Michelle Obama's Oberlin College commencement oration provides considerable insight into our own political era. The speech also serves as evidence that the First Lady is hardly the first rate intellect propagandists have made her out to be.
The Gettysburg Address begins, “Four score and seven years ago.” The Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self evident.”
Not every piece of public rhetoric is going to stir the soul with such inspiration. But with the opening of “Hi! How are you all doing?”, it is obvious that the First Lady didn't even bother to try.
It's not like there is probably all that much going on in Michelle Obama's brain to begin with. For despite all of the wisdom that a graduation speaker of her status can attempt to impart to the assembled before her, she launches into the same manner of tirade she and her consort Barack have invoked throughout the course of his presidency to manipulate those mesmerized by them into surrendering whatever it is that the couple desires.
For nearly the first thing out of her mouth beyond that idiotic greeting that reminds one more of the quack doctor Nick Riviera on the Simpsons rather than a leader worthy of any kind of admiration was in essence the First Couple's usual pronouncement of “Look at me. I'm Black. And you are racist if you don't comply with our demands no matter how ridiculous or outlandish they might be.”
Her proclamation was not articulated that way exactly. However, that categorization was an accurate summary of what did follow.
The First Lady pointed out that Oberlin was the first college in America to view Blacks and women as legitimate students. However, seldom are the Obama's interested in history that does not either further their agenda or manipulate spineless Whites into compliance.
For in her commencement oration, the First Lady did not reference this historic fact for the purposes of reminding what the individual is capable of through the processes of scholastic advancement and personal improvement. Rather, Michelle Obama proceeded to harp upon the necessity of compliance with the collective and agitation on the part of the herd mentality.
The First Lady warned, “And the truth is, graduates, after four years of thoughtful, respectful discussion and debate here at Oberlin...you might find yourself a little dismayed by the clamor outside of these walls --- the name calling, the negative ads, the folks yelling at each other on TV. After being surrounded by people who are so dedicated to serving others and making the world a better place, you might feel a little discouraged by the polarization and gridlock that too often characterize our politics and civic life.”
Maybe so. But if the world outside the campus is discordant and filled with conflict, those embracing the worldview and policies of the First Lady are just as guilty (if not even more so) for making it that way.
One particular question raised by those turning a critical mind to Michelle Obama's diatribe is on what grounds are things obligated to be as the First Lady prefers them?
In the portion of the speech just quoted, Frau Obama rhetorically crafts the impression that those not relenting to the social vision of leftwing academics somehow do not want to serve others or make the world a better place. This is especially relevant when the assembled she is addressing rank among the foremost in insisting that absolute standards do not exist or are determined by the prevailing demagogue of the moment.
Frau Obama continued, “...you don't get to be...cautious or cynical.” The question must be asked, “And what if we are?”
For what the First Lady is saying when she invokes the words “cautious” and “cynical” is that you are not to question the social engineering directives when these are handed down by elites. Your's is not to reason why; your's is but to do or die.
To the likes of Obama and related totalitarians, the ideal is best visualized in a scene from the movie “Conan The Barbarian”.
In the particular sequence, Thulsa Doom (played by James Earl Jones) signals to one of his cult followers to come to him immediately. The deluded acolyte doesn't descend the winding staircase. Instead, without hesitation, the doomed soul voluntarily plunges to his death gleefully to satisfy the whim of his master and false god.
Frau Obama reflected, “Are you planning to rally for marriage equality on the steps of the Supreme Court? I certainly hope so.” She continued, “Just think about the folks who are winning those battles...to ensure that everyone in this country can marry the person they love. Think about how just 10 years ago, gay marriage was legal in just one state...and today it is legal...”
And wasn't her husband at the time numbered among those that counseled against the recognition of such illicit unions? If so, shouldn't he be removed from office in the same manner as the Mozilla executive that did nothing more subversive than contribute to a referendum initiative that opposed gay marriage before the matter became part of the settled orthodoxy few possess the courage to question for fear of what will happen to their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor?
What is it, then, that makes these positions right or wrong? Is it the whims of the mob?
If so, those opposing the capriciousness of the First Lady are well within their rights to be as cynical and cautious as they want to be. For there exists no basis of rationality from which the First Lady can legitimately launch her criticisms and assaults.
Are these principles grounded in some kind of basis that will outlast the arbitrary tyranny unfolding around us (gentler as it might be at the moment but which Friedrich Hayek warned would grow increasingly violent as the policies imposed would grow increasingly at odds with human nature)? If so, those that the First Lady and her devotees would rather intimidate into silence are obligated in the name of higher truth to avail themselves of every moral means to defend such eternal verities.
In the Obamaist perspective, the individual exists as little more than grist for the elites to grind down as they see fit. The First Lady fondly recalled, “Think about those elections in 2008 and 2012 when idealistic young people ... worked for hours for little money and less sleep ... Think about the millions of folks who got out to vote on Election Day, waiting in the cold and rain in lines that stretched for hours, refusing to leave until they made their voices heard.”
And for what? Did the First Lady endure similar suffering and deprivation?
If anything, she made out like a bandit. During the couple's occupation of the White House, they have taken multiple high-priced vacations, flown in pizza chefs from Chicago, and procured evening gowns costing thousands upon thousands of dollars.
Under the rule of the Obamas, most Americans (especially those that did not vote for Barack to begin with) have had the enjoyment of their own petty lives significantly curtailed. For whereas in the age prior to skyrocketing fuel and food costs one might have gone to a place like Walmart quite regularly, now it seems one might get to such an establishment about four times per year.
Towards the conclusion of her oration, Frau Obama declared, “And I want to be clear: Every ordinance, every ballot measure, every law on the books in this country --- that is your concern.”
That sounds noble and inspirational upon an initial hearing. For example, if some corrupt backwoods sheriff deprives someone of a different color of their constitutional protections elaborated upon in the Bill Of Rights, it ought to bother you whether you are from New York City or the cotton fields of Georgia.
But just how deeply do you want people from other parts of the country probing into the nuts and bolts mechanics of your local government or even way of life?
For example, those in more liberal areas such as New York City or San Francisco might assume that it is their business what children in Appalachia are taught regarding evolution and creation science. But conversely, should Rednecks have an appreciable say as to whether or not someone should be allowed to walk down the streets of such urban centers brandishing so-called “assault weapons” without the police being allowed to say one thing whatsoever to such individuals?
Towards the conclusion of her oration, Michelle Obama admonished, “Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.” Ironically, it is through compliance with that very axiom that true patriots must continue to expose this First Couple for what they are as their regime draws to a close and why Americans must remain vigilant as Barack and Michelle will no doubt continue to undermine our freedoms from the shadows of private life once they leave office.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
But that apology should only be offered should McCain also apologize in part for snide remarks he has made regarding grassroots conservatives over the years but more importantly for undermining border security.
Distasteful as they were, not a single person will be physically harmed as a result of Trump's callous quip.
Thousands have no doubt been injured and their lives ruined as profoundly as a prison of war as a result of McCain's failure to protect the border.
It is suggested that Donald Trump's unfortunate remarks regarding John McCain should disqualify the billionaire from the presidency.
Then why haven't Barack Obama's remarks that have been just as offensive and perhaps an even more profound threat to America's constitutional foundations disqualify him from occupying the Oval Office?
Perhaps these should be reviewed once again.
As a candidate, Barack Obama denigrated rural Pennsylvanians for bitterly clinging to their guns and their God.
Would he have said something similar regarding Muslims?
As a candidate, Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber how wealth should be seized from those that produced it and redistributed to those that have not really made much of an effort at being productive.
As president, Obama reiterated the collectivist perspective when he chided entrepreneurs, business owners, and any other American that struggles to pull their own weight, “Hey, you didn't build that.”
by Frederick Meekins
World Mayors Expand Carbon Footprint At The Pope’s Request To Strategize Ways To Curtail Economic Liberty
Monday, July 20, 2015
Saturday, July 18, 2015
The other pundits lambasted fellow talkinghead Greg Gutfeld for excoriating Pope Francis for perpetuating a dangerous anti-capitalist mindset.
The others attempted to persuade Gutfeld that what the Pope really opposed was simply materialism and greed.
In the next segment, these very same media elites who already possess more than the Pope would allow under his regime of global asceticism and income redistribution bemoaned that the bargains offered during Amazon's twentieth anniversary sale didn't exactly live up to the hype as they had hoped.
When Gutfeld pointed out that Amazon wouldn't even be available if innovation was restricted to levels suggested by Pope Francis, he was ordered to give it a break and that he was in danger of hellfire for simply countering the Pope in an area outside of that position's narrow area of expertise.
However, the only thing that puts you in danger of hellfire is if you believe that something other than calling upon name of the Lord Jesus Christ can possibly keep you from there.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 17, 2015
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015
Wonder if any of the NBC executives severing the network's relationship with Donald Trump have Hispanics in their neighborhoods that blast music well past midnight.
Why are bakeries allowed to deny Confederate flag cakes under freedom of expression and conscience but doing so in regards to sodomite wedding cakes can result in financial ruination and compulsory reeducation?
If gays wanted a Confederate wedding cake, could Walmart be sued if the corporation failed to comply with the request?
In the launch of his presidential campaign, Chris Christie assures that compromise is not a dirty word. But with gay marriage legalized, the healthcare industry hobbled and the Confederate flag banished, there isn't much left to compromise on.
Rand Paul suggests that, in the light of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage, the relational institution should be privatized. How does that protect a Christian baker from being compelled to bake wedding cakes against their will? Relatedly, as a heterosexual, even if granting marriage licenses to same sex couples demeans the institution overall, how would it compromise the state of you own union if you as a heterosexual acquires a marriage license under this expanded judicial mandate? If you don't love your spouse to a sufficient extent isn't that more your own fault rather than the state recognition of marriage being extended to those that should not have it?
For decades, Christians offended by something culturally were chided that they were not required to gaze upon that which they found disagreeable. Are minority activists some how inferior in terms of their mental aptitude and emotional constitution that they are not able to abide by similar counsel in regards to the Confederate flag and war memorials?
If there is a cultural obligation to take down statues erected in honor of valiant Confederates, why not the statue erected in honor of infamous deadbeat Michael Brown?
A NOAA study claims that firework displays spark a spike in air pollution. Does this occur just during festivities where the Declaration of Independence is celebrated? Or does this also include other celebrations where pyrotechnics are deployed to commemorate occasions such as Hispanic Heritage Month or municipal International Festivals that celebrate nearly every ethnicity imagination with the exception of those White in origin.
The Ten Commandments monument must be removed in Oklahoma because it might unfairly advantage one religion over another. So when it comes to the bombing of the Federal Building in that state, Timothy McVeigh's worldview deserves an equal hearing with the suggestion of “Thou shalt not murder”.
Greg Gutfeld griping about how watching pointless videos and trivialities does not bring real satisfaction and we should instead do productive things. So does that mean we should switch off his po-mo Sunday evening broadcast? Why should drunkard Greg Gutfeld get worked up if people spend time watching cat videos?
So when Donald Trump rants against the Chinese it is evidence of how radical and dangerous the Republicans are. But when these people rant against cheap imported food, we are supposed to applaud that as progressivity and Enlightenment.
So if broads watch this movie about male strippers, on what grounds do they gripe if a man gawks at a woman's bosom when they are shoved in the face?
George Takei has said that Clarence Thomas is a clown in Black face that should not be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. For suggesting that the swarms of illegals pouring over the border might not be the best that Latin America has to offer, a systematic campaign is underway to economically destroy Donald Trump. Clarence Thomas has fulfilled the requirements to be where he is. Irrespective of what Donald Trump said, those he said it of have no right to be here. Therefore, shouldn't George Takei be ostracized in a similar manner? The Duke's of Hazard has been removed from the airwaves under the theory that catching a glimpse of the Confederate flag painted on the roof of the General Lee might send a viewer into a homicidal rampage. Should Star Trek also be removed from station programming rotations for fear of seeing George Takei eliciting a similarly psychotic response?
The Dukes Of Hazard was removed from the airwaves because of those allegedly victimized by the Confederate flag or merely offended by it. Extrapolating from the logic, shouldn't Shark Week broadcasts be canceled out of respect for those mangled and disfigured in attacks along the Atlantic coastline?
Regarding those mocking the man that sued his anesthesiologist for mocking his privates during a colonoscopy and won a sizable settlement. Would they call for such leniency if it had been a male doctor ridiculing a woman's privates?
In a sermon posted at his blog titled, “Why It's Time To Exchange Our Civil Religion For A Cross”, Southern Baptist functionary Russell Moore scolds those that invoke a form of godliness for the purposes of molding the kinds of citizens necessary to uphold the American Republic. But how is that markedly different than his invocation of Christianity to support the abolition of the Confederate flag?
In a sermon on marriage, to those wishing that their marital unions could be better, a pastor said that all you really deserve is an eternity in Hell so you should be nothing but elated over anything else. By this standard, even if the pastor instructed how one ought to treat one's spouse, on what grounds would an abused wife be allowed to complain about a husband that keeps her locked in a cage and subjects her to nightly beatings? For as terrible as that sounds, it's still better than the eternal damnation threshold is it not?
If Jeb Bush is going to rush forward to insist that a percentage of illegals aren't criminals and deadbeats is he going to insist as eagerly that most supporters of the Confederate flag aren't racists or mass murderers?
A meme regarding the series AD reads, “Do you remember that story in the Book of Acts where Saul of Tarsus attacks and burns down the Christian commune that was living on Barnabas' land?” The meme replies, “Neither do we. The AD miniseries is historical and religious fiction. Don't rely on it to teach you anything accurate about Christianity.” The production is, indeed, a work of historical fiction. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. What the narrative attempts to do is to use the events described in the Biblical record as a springboard to postulate about moments that weren't detailed in the divine revelation but which do not necessarily contradict or violate it. Since Saul persecuted the early Christians, he might have very well participated in a similar kind of raid. Too many Christians (hardcore Protestant especially) seem to demand a depiction of Scripture about as peppy as a dozing octogenarian having missed their scheduled dosage of Ovaltine.
If Sanctuary Cities can get by with flouting federal immigration law when the Constitution gives the national government primary authority in regards to this statutory area, will jurisdictions that refuse to authorize gay marriage be as celebrated for standing by their principles in regards to an area of law that was intended to be defined primarily by the individual states?
Bush lackey Ari Fleischer insists that Donald Trump is not a credible candidate for the presidency. Maybe not. But isn't the real estate tycoon more of a statesman for speaking out plainly regarding an issue with the potential to ruin the United States and to catalyze the nation's ultimate collapse? All that the establishmentarian candidates suggested by the likes of Fleischer offer is a continued policy of acceptance and tolerance that threatens our very survival.
Morgan Freeman is narrating a public service announcement extolling Pope's Francis' environmental philosophy. Will he also narrate one celebrating traditional Roman Catholic social teaching regarding monogamous heterosexual marriage?
If the son of Paula Dean is to be condemned for wearing dark makeup as part of a Ricky Ricardo Halloween costume, does that mean Star Trek should be removed from the air because Ricardo Montebhan played a shade darker down the racial pigmentation chart in portraying Khan Singh when Montebahn is of a Spanish descent while Khan was from the Indian subcontinent?
Will those jacked out of shape about a church flying a Christian flag over an American flag get as worked up over the sodomite ensign being allowed to fly on military bases?
The same ones getting jacked out of shape about a church flying a Christian flag above an American flag probably rank among those that would look on approvingly as Black Lives Matter subversives set an American flag ablaze.
At least the church that flew the Christian flag above the American flag has an American flag on the property. Some churches are so spineless these days they won't even have an American flag for fear it will prevent the congregation from being taken over by Third Worlders.
If one man can now decide to marry another, aren't we really past the point of getting jacked out of shape if a church decides to fly the Christian flag above the American flag as a display of how they order the priority of their authorities?
An immigrant restaurant owner is threatening to pull out of the Post Office Pavilion redevelopment project as a result of Donald Trump's comments. If Mexico is such a wonderful place with nothing but first rate people, why did this migrant come here rather than live out his life in an alleged Third World paradise?
Now that the Confederate flag has been for all intensive purposes banished from polite society, will radical Black activists return to civilized behavior? Or will they grow even more violent in terms of their rampages following court verdicts, law enforcement tactical decisions, and even sporting event outcomes over which they experience intense emotion having seen how quickly White leaders cave into these kinds of demands?
So if gays can compel Christian businesses to render services in support of their blasphemous nuptials, shouldn't insurance companies be compelled to render financial services to churches opposed to gay marriage?
Because of a single homicidal lunatic, the nation is expected to get onboard a frenzy to banish the Confederate flag from this land. Therefore, shouldn't the death of an American citizen at the hands of a felonious illegal alien deported multiple times spark as much effort on the part of elected officials and business leaders to repel back over the border the transnational migrants violating this established boundary?
Regarding the young woman murdered by an illegal alien on the streets of San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi pronounced that we must prevent easy access to firearms. Since the weapon used to perpetrate this crime belonged to a federal agent, does that mean that law enforcement must also be disarmed?
From a local newspaper, sounds like another farmer's market is planned for the area. The ones in the area already seem to be in decline with ugly hippies seeming to outnumber the produce. So why are the fried doughnuts and the smelly slop prepared on site by the foreigners in their food trucks really any healthier than the McDonald's down the street?
I voted Donald Trump in a GOP straw pole. There are things that disturb me profoundly regarding the real estate mogul. However, I agree nearly wholeheartedly with his remarks regarding illegal immigration. This threat to our culture, sovereignty, and very survival is not going to be resolved by keeping quiet about it. Even in the days as Rome fell, from the impression one takes away, at least they seemed to take pride to some degree that they were Roman. The elites here seem hellbent on eradicating traditional conceptions of the American identity from the listing of the nations of the world.
Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine has labeled Donald Trump as Narcissist In Chief. No doubt Trump's lifestyle skewers a bit to the ostentatious end of the luxury spectrum. But mind you, Wallis is of the variety of liberal that makes gaudy public pronouncements bemoaning name calling and insults should he hear something similar emanate from talk radio. Donald Trump might indeed be self-absorbed. But less so than the Occupy Movement deadbeats Wallis suggested that churches open their doors to shelter these vagabonds as they traveled from protest to protest as if on some kind of spiritual pilgrimage. Donald Trump was disciplined enough to build a business empire. The Occupy subversives didn't even possess the ability to control their bowels in public or the courtesy not to defile churches.
The sheriff of San Francisco says that, as a father, he is outraged that some would dare invoke the death of an American citizen at the hands of an illegal alien to question the policy of Sanctuary Cities. What in the name of Sheol does his having reproduce have to do with any of this?
A social media status update posted by the Western Journalism Center read “'Like' if you think we need a candidate like Ronald Reagan in the White House." But didn't Regan play a part in getting the ball rolling in terms of surrendering to the illegal aliens and the authorization of the assorted Executive Orders that could institute a near totalitarian police state with the flick of a pen?
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is being heralded as courageous for having the Confederate flag at the state house removed. But is it really an act of courage to get on board with a demand that will eventually result with riots in the streets if it is not complied with or result in the end of one's political career if an elected official does not obey a direct order of one's Illuminati handlers?
Of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule, Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics & Public Policy Center warned in a National Review Online column that the purpose of such a regulation is “to undo America's system of local government and replace it with a regional alternative that turn suburbs into helpless satellites of large cities.” To put that into words many will be able to relate to, the Obama regime is establishing the framework where your adolescent offspring will eventually be subjected to a lottery where the selected will be required to battle one another to the death in televised gladiatorial amusements. May the odds forever be in your favor.
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, July 12, 2015
However, in Thomas' estimation, a candidate cannot bludgeon one's way into the Oval Office.
Instead one must have a positive, unifying message.
As such, Republicans should distance themselves from the bombastic billionaire.
I have respected Cal Thomas for decades and consider his own style an influence upon my own.
Given his own track record of verbal bluntness, does that mean Conservatives and Christians should distance themselves from this aging toupeed pecksniff?
At a certain point, these calls for toleration and broadmindedness threaten national and even individual survival.
Did Churchill go out of his way to point out that not all Nazis were necessarily involved with the worst atrocities of the Third Reich?
Those insisting upon death by a thousand qualifications in relation to the immigrant invasion no doubt ranked among those outraged as if Pope Benedict was a part of the Fuhrer's inner circle for his membership in the Hitler Youth during his boyhood even though he had little choice in the matter.
And what if ISIS or the Red Chinese Army were to gain a foothold in the continental United States?
Would national leaders be required at that point in the future to linguistically trip all over themselves how that not everyone marching under the banners of those particular adversaries were necessarily engaged directly in acts of unconscionable violence?
For if we as a nation cannot confront a for the most part unorganized onslaught without fear paralyzing us into inaction, what makes you think that the compromisers and vacillators will stand any more bravely when systematized atrocities at the hands of foreigners begin to break out in American streets?
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, July 11, 2015
There is a movement to redo a World War I memorial in Emmitsburg, Maryland honoring the town's veterans of that particular conflict.
Three of the names are singled out for being “Colored Soldiers”.
Given the nature of the era in which the monument was erected, shouldn't historical revisionists be delighted that the town fathers recognized the contribution of these particular patriots anyway despite the perceptions that might have been prevalent in that day?
Had the original monument incorporated all of the names as a singular group, multiculturalists would likely instigate a kerfuffle how the Black soldiers should have been singled out for special recognition because of answering the call of their country to duty despite not being allowed to enjoy the blessings of that country in their day to the fullest.
If American History is now to be viewed as an integrated whole, will the same civic leaders issue a proclamation how such a progressive and forward thinking hamlet will from this day henceforward no longer be celebrating Black History Month but rather simply History Month?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 10, 2015
For example, Barton went on to insist that the concept of adolescence does not exist because it cannot be articulated in Biblical Hebrew.
In that culture, one was considered an adult around 13 or 14 years of age deemed ready to assume the status as such.
The increasing number of ministers that cannot seem to keep their hands of the underaged are going to love that little nugget of supposed exegesis.
In terms of that philosophical highpoint, Barton's loosening grip on reality becomes even more tenuous.
According to Barton, the concept of rights do not exist in Hebrew.
He insinuates that these ought to be downplayed in the American system with responsibilities instead emphasized.
So when SWAT teams begin raiding churches for failing to solemnize gay marriages, on what grounds does he raise a fuss in defense of those punished for non-compliance?
Do some of these professional religionists contemplate the implications of what they articulate or do they simply spew that which postures them in the most pious light possible?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Before condemning a concept because it might not be explicitly authorized in Scripture, shouldn't one try to live up to those that actually are?
For example, in regards to the purveyors of errant doctrine such as Kenneth Copeland, shouldn't Barton come out from among him and be ye separate?
God might not have intended human beings to retire.
However, it's probably a safe assertion that the Deity is more peeved about ministers that manipulate their congregations and viewing audiences through outlandish religious claims into donating gobs of money to finance the preacher's swanky lifestyle.
However, that apparently didn't prevent Barton from appearing on the broadcast of an infamous huckster like Kenneth Copeland.
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
Secularist Fanatics Outraged Justice Thomas Clarifies That Human Dignity Bestowed By God Rather Than Government
Click On The Headline
Monday, July 06, 2015
In the April 2015 edition, there were at least two articles that would have been construed as racist if written from the opposite perspective.
In the first, three theologians were asked, “Which false teachings are evangelical Christians most tempted to believe in?”
Before we get started, the “e” in the “evangelical” is not capitalized.
In a story regarding the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches, would those beginning letters be “decapitalized” so as to minimize the importance of these sects?
But now, back to the tirade.
Fuller Theological Seminar Professor Amos Young responded that racism is the one.
In his piece, the academic denounces “the long-standing Euro-American cultural privilege.”
He writes, “Too many times, ethnic minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics are marginalized and blamed for it.”
Does Christianity Today intend to publish an expose on the frothing anti-White and anti-American sentiment emanating from the pulpits of many lefwting and minority churches?
The second anti-White incident in this very same issue of Christianity today occurred in an interview regarding a book by church historian Justo Gonzalez on the Gospel of Luke.
The article celebrates how the text “applies a Latin American lens to familiar parts of Scripture.”
The review obsequiously ponders, “When a Latin American theologian reads Luke, what there gets noticed that others might underplay?”
Does Christianity Today intend to publish an article openly asking with uncontainable anticipation of other noted scholars, “When a Teutonic American reads [insert preferred Biblical text here], what themes get noticed that others might underplay.”
Perhaps a New Testament gem that gets overlooked these days is that, if you don't work, you don't eat.
In his reply to the interview, Gonzalez celebrates how the Scripture is worded to favor the poor over the rich.
Therefore, it needs to be asked in regards to the royalties for the books he has sold over the years should these instead be given to someone that hasn't worked as hard as Justo Gonzalez to master these fields of scholarship?
Or does this Marxist posturing only apply to other people, particular those such as Whites that the editors of Christianity Today have gotten on the bandwagon against?
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Friday, July 03, 2015
Establishmentarian Media Apoplectic Many Americans Refuse To Relent Abolishing The Second Amendment & The Confederate Flag Essential In Presenting Mass Casualty Attacks
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Moore propagandizes, “The Cross and the Confederate flag cannot coexist without one setting the other on fire. White Christians, let's listen to our African-American brothers and sisters.”
Why among these ecclesiastical milksops is it always the obligation of the White person to compromise?
If race does not really exist as some of these leftwing theologians insist when they attempt to denigrate Whites any other time, why are they reluctant to condemn the flagrant sins engaged in by certain segments of the Black community such as the deliberate destruction of property following a controversial jury verdict or law enforcement tactical decision?
If we are obligated as Christians to downplay our earthly identities for the sake of heavenly unity, why did Russell Moore not condemn the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference as an organization that does not advance the cause of brotherhood among all Christians but rather an agenda focused upon determining the worth of an individual not by the content of their character but rather by the color of their skin.
Why did this seminarian instead accept a position on the board of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference?
In his column extolling the imperative of lowering the Confederate ensign, Dr. Moore condemned White Citizens' Councils that attempted to rally and speak on behalf of what such entities construed as the interests of that particular pigmentation extraction during the tumultuous era of desegregation.
Would he accept a position in a similar agency charged with the purpose of looking out for the interests of White Evangelicals in this era where increasing accolades are lavished upon certain individuals for really no other reason than that they happen to be members of certain groups, or would Moore at least extend his blessings to the formation of just such an organization?
One could not help but notice how quickly Russell Mooore called for the surrender of the Confederate flag.
Was this Southern Baptist functionary as prompt in condemning the Knockout Game where groups of marauding Blacks pick a victim (often a Whiter person denigrated as a “snowflake”) for the sole purposes of determining how many blows to the head are required to render the target unconscious?
It is argued that the Confederate flag should be removed from the grounds of the South Carolina State House and ultimately the wider culture altogether largely because of how that banner is perceived by certain people.
If this is being done largely on the basis of feeling which as an existential inclination which cannot really be categorized as right or wrong, what if someone gets a turd crossways about the official state flag of South Carolina with the crescent moon on it which in some minds might evoke traumas and phobias associated with Islam?
Why aren't those with that particular psychological shortcoming or deficiency being catered to if entire cultures must be comprehensively altered because a few disgruntled activists are predisposed to rampaging in the streets and destroying private property when they don't happen to get their way?
But because a symbol or custom offends a particular segment of the population, does that mean the endorsement of such by the state must be rescinded?
A noticeable percentage of the population no doubt questions the legitimacy of Black History Month.
Does that mean the celebration should be ended?
And what about gay marriage?
If outspoken principled conservatives and ministers of the Gospel emboldened by the Holy Spirit can turn the tide on this issue, does that mean the state sanction for such unions should be revoked or at least the formation of additional licensed couplings prohibited because public opinion wills such?
Interestingly, the anti-Dixie mindset has not confined itself to the ranks of the Southern Baptist Convention of which the organization's leadership often crave the applause and establishmentarian approval that has doomed the doctrinal fidelity of numerous other denominations.
It has even spread to a number of Independent Baptists where is has predictably taken on even more fanatical tones as often occurs in this related divergent ecclesiastical movement.
In their analysis of Russell Moore's column regarding the Confederate flag, Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in a SermonAudio podcast was baffled by and mocked the Southern Baptist functionary's confession that the only things Moore loved more than his native Mississippi were Christ, the Church, and his family.
Harris contemptuously verbalized that, in this day of social mobility and diversity, how is it that an individual could possess such an emotional devotion and connection to their native state.
In his online biography, Pastor Harris details his distinguished career in the U.S. military.
So why is expressing such dedication to your country in that particular manner on the part of a Christian acceptable but not to a particular jurisdiction within that particular country?
Does the pastor ridicule missionaries with a heart for a particular area or people group?
As a carpetbagger from Massachusetts, perhaps Pastor Harris ought not to ridicule that which he does not understand.
Just because he has lived a life of globetrotting, it does not follow that everyone else is so required by either inclination or circumstance.
It has been suggested that the Confederate flag should be removed because those that marched under it shot and killed American soldiers.
Should the American flag be equally exiled because General Sherman, marching under that ensign, destroyed civilian property?
Pastor Harris assured that he is so dedicated to the Lord that he doesn't even want to be associated with the flag of the United States.
Then why do his online biographies provide significant detail regarding his military service?
If patriotism is to be viewed as something little better than wicked, isn't listing such achievements akin to someone in the porn industry not only listing what films they appeared in but what roles they played.
Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church argued that no Christian should display the Confederate flag because of the hurtful connotations associated with it.
People have also been hurt in the name of the Cross and the Bible as well.
Some Jews won't even look up at a steeple as they pass by a church.
So ought Christians to also renounce these symbols of culture and creed while we are at it?
If certain churches are bent on jumping on the anti-Confederate bandwagon, that is certainly their prerogative under the First Amendment.
Likewise, no American is obligated to remain in a church that bashes a specific heritage (especially that of those that have been with that particular theological grouping or ecclesiastical affiliation for decades and generations) in order to attract another or to win favor with the self-appointed benefactors of such demographics.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Therefore, was Christ not reflecting the Gospel when He drove the moneychangers from the Temple as He flipped over tables and drove them from the premises at the receiving end of a knotted chord?
Moore further reflected that we must not succumb to the American mode of anger where we demonize our enemies.
Does Moore mean in a way similar to the disparaging characterizations he has made regarding Christians that listen to Conservative talk radio and are reluctant to take down the Confederate flag?
Perhaps Dr. Moore would prefer that we adopt the ghetto mode of anger given his preference for that demographic as of late where we would loot the inventory of a local merchant that has nothing to do with the dispute setting off such upheaval.
Of would the Al Qada mode of anger be more appropriate where jetliners are flown into skyscrapers?
The strength of Protestant Evangelical scholarship has been an enthusiasm for what words mean.
At the core of the word “demonize” is “demon”.
Shouldn't those bent of destroying God's intended order for humanity be opposed strongly?
If you aren't going to get upset about that intent, there really isn't anything to get jacked out of shape about.
By Frederick Meekins