In this New York Post write-up, the famed financial advisor advocates gay marriage bemoaning that upon her death, her partner will be taxed at 50%.
Why is that a greater cause for lamentation than inheritance taxes hitting anyone else, gay or straight?
Why can't we abolish all inheritance taxes rather than undermine marriage?
Few discussions will provoke opinions among believers as heated as whether or not Christians ought to enjoy works of popular fantasy.
On the one hand, some claim believers should avoid these realms of the imagination. On the other, there are those Christians so desperate to justify their interest with a veneer of spirituality that they try to establish one to one correlations between these entertaining stories and Holy Scripture.
“Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands: A Christian Dialogue With Harry Potter, Star Wars & Lord Of The Rings” by Russell Dalton endeavors to provide a balance between these competing outlooks.
While highlighting the parts of these works that appeal to enduring values, Dalton also admits that neither are these stories themselves Scripture. Rather, he writes, “This book takes an approach that goes beyond a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ evaluation of fiction and film. It gives the reader a chance to reflect whether or not the behaviors and beliefs of the characters in today’s fantasy stories are consistent with the Christian faith, but it also looks at the questions these stories demand of our faith by entering into a dialogue between these fantasy stories and the Christians story (7).”
Rather than condemn The Lord Of The Rings, Star Wars, or even Harry Potter, “Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands” prudently counsels that the problems that arise in reference to these stories often lie not so much in the stories themselves but in those that read them. For example, most that read Harry Potter are not going to end up sacrificing goats or taking oaths of unending allegiance to Satan. Thus, Dalton suggests, parents must decide for themselves how much exposure to Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Lord Of The Rings their children should receive.
Though for the most part balanced in his approach, the reader will no doubt detect a hint of political correctness seeping into Dalton’s exposition. For example, he does not use the phrase “Kingdom of God” but rather “The Reign Of God.” Likewise, Dalton does not refer to Jesus as “the Son of Man” but rather as “the Son of Humanity”.
Dalton also gets all maudlin that the characters in these stories are primarily White. But since Middle Earth is said to correspond to some kind of pre-historic Europe and Hogwarts is a British alchemical school, what does he expect?
If Aragorn had had such vacillating attitudes, Sauron would have still been ruling over Middle Earth by the end of the third film.
Even if one disagrees with the conclusions drawn by “Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands“, one has to admit Dalton approaches the issue in an overall even handed manner carefully respecting the opinions on each side.
by Frederick Meekins
Dr. Stan analyzes this informative topic with the author of the article available at NewsWithViews.com.
Interesting how American Idol banishes a full-sized gal for risque photographs but does nothing to one that not only is alleged to reveal more but deflies a national monument while she's doing it.
Kind of like how Americans refuse to cut out welfare out of fear of the human rabble that will take to the streets and pillage if their demands for handouts and entitlements are not met.
An interesting discussion between Dr. Stan Monteith and Contance Crumbey focusing on the inordinate instances of the number 666 surrounding international man of mystery Javier Salano.
An informative discussion from Radio Liberty on how global warming is actually a scam designed to bring the West, particularly the United States to its knees and to reduce the population through a deliberate campaign of starvation and deprivation.
Incidents such as Waco, Jonestown, and the Heaven’s Gate suicides prove the unique challenge such sects pose to contemporary society because of the threats they represent to both life and liberty while having to balance the need to protect the innocent from this danger yet recognizing these organizations have a right to operate under the First Amendment provided they have not committed what most reasonable people would consider an actual crime. In Storming Heaven, Kyle Mills examines a number of these issues in the form of an action novel.
In “Storming Heaven“, FBI Agent Mark Beamon must rescue the granddaughter of a deceased cult leader before she is sacrificed to ensure that power within the group remains within the hands of those already running the show unbeknownst to even the late sect leader. But even though this race against the clock provides most of the suspense within the novel, readers will also be riveted by the extent to which some will go to seize control in the name of religion.
Though Mills concludes the novel with a disclaimer implying that his story should not be construed as picking on any one sect, it doesn’t take too much effort to deduce that the novel reflects concerns regarding Scientology in that the group in the story has a keen interest in courting the influential and its run ins with the German government are central to the plot.
The fictional religion featured in Storming Heaven is known as the Church of Evolution. According to its doctrine, the messenger of God comes to earth at regular intervals throughout history to update His revelation to mankind as humanity’s understanding and comprehension expands.
As such, God’s spokesman to the present age is Arthur Knesis, who is dying and plans to take his own life and hand leadership of the church over to his granddaughter. However as with such groups here in the real world, self-proclaimed omniscience isn’t what it use to be as Knesis’ second-in-command Sara Rensiler has secretly taken control of the church to further her own agenda.
“Storming Heaven” provides a fascinating portrayal of what can happen when the ambitious deliberately turn their backs on enduring values in pursuit of fanatic objectives. The Church of Evolution goes so far to achieve its goals as to set up its own long distance carrier in order to ease drop on and ultimately entrap prominent figures for blackmail purposes and to frame the group’s opponents with unfounded accusations such as pedophilia.
Yet it is this sense of skepticism and suspicion that also is also the novel’s greatest drawback as the motives of this particular cult’s leadership are used to basically call into question all religious movements throughout history without taking the time to test the veracity of any of their claims. Despite being motivated by the noble goals of saving the young girl’s life and unfurling the vast conspiracy of the Church of Evolution, other than his own existential wherewithal, one gets the impression that FBI Agent Mark Beamon does not have much of a moral support structure to fall back upon to say that the cult is really wrong in its action since all throughout the story it is insinuated that the real danger is any firmly held belief.
Despite a tendency to employ more profanity than is necessary, readers will no doubt enjoy this thriller providing a perspective on a topic seldom examined by authors in the secular branch of this genre.
by Frederick Meekins
Columnist and broadcaster Bruce Collins examines the similarities between professional wrestling and world politcs. Those familar with each will find the article quite witty.
From this episode of Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Montieth, one is forced to conclude if the elites are using the plan to chip all livestock in the United States as a trial run for expanding such a program to the human population.
One of the most comic irrationalities to come out of the Vietnam War was that a village had to be destroyed in order to save it. Half a world away, the comment has become something of a joke ever since epitomizing government stupidity; however, as similar logic begins to be used here all in the name of national security, such an observation won’t seem as amusing anymore.
Most responding to my column about efforts to permanently bar the American people from the upper reaches of the Statue of Liberty agreed with my position. However, one response reflected the kind of thinking that will not only end up getting the remainder of our freedoms taken away from us but also lecture us why it is our civic duty to have a smile across our face while it is happening.
In the response, the government toady writes that, since the Statue of Liberty is a target because of its symbolic value as an artistic representation of America’s values, any and all measures should be taken to protect the landmark.
However, since Lady Liberty’s function is primarily symbolic, by closing her off aren’t we sending the message to the world that liberty is not an inalienable and immutable but rather contingent upon circumstances and the malleable whims of those holding power.
If the American people so easily cede control over something symbolic, what is to prevent them from handing over the more practical manifestations of their liberties should authorities whip them into a sufficient frenzy or panic?
For example, in his conclusion, this Department of Homeland Security booster remarks, “If it is OVERDONE, tis better me thinks so long as no place is given to the evil ones.”
Should we place armed troops on every street corner allowed to manhandle passerbys at random? Better yet, should entire neighborhoods be relocated to designated civic detention facilities where authorities can keep better tabs on the population and thus protect them better; after all, if it prevents terrorism according to the Overdone Doctrine, on what grounds may we object?
Don’t think proponents of security beyond that which is necessary wouldn’t be above curtailing those rights that have little bearing whatsoever on preventing mass destruction.
The critic writes, “To use her as your soapbox issue to point your finger and denigrate government simply out of your own opinion of its motivation is counterproductive, and limited it its veracity.”
Frankly, the government denigrates itself when it directs so much effort at closing down one of America’s most cherished monuments rather than closing down the border. Maybe if the government did its job there, the Statue of Liberty wouldn’t need to be closed.
Yet, to those yearning not to live free but rather to have every facet of their lives monitored by authorities, pointing out such shortcomings and inconsistencies that compromise both our safety and quality of life is no longer characterized as the act of a concerned citizen but rather as deeds “counterproductive” that “undermine the population’s confidence”. In other words, freedom of expression is something that will have to be curtailed as a threat to national security even though pointing out the shortcomings and fallacies of those wielding power threatens no one other than those incompetently wielding the power the people have been gracious enough to grant them under the Constitution.
As an American icon, one’s attitude towards the management of the Statue of Liberty says a great deal about one’s perspective. Either one believes in the basic principles the Statue stands for and believes the American people should be granted access to it or one believes that people are better off having the government control the minutest details of their lives and that common citizens are not good enough to caresses this special lady.
by Frederick Meekins
For my commentary “Contract Granted For American Concentration Camps” those conditioned into accepting whatever the government does as good and acceptable dismissed me as some kind of raving lunatic.
I wonder if they will be singing the same tune when more and more Americans of commonsense come around to my viewpoint on the topic.
On the conclusion of the Jericho midseason finale, the episode closes with a band of weary stragglers wandering into the Kansas town the series is named after.
According to TV Guide these are refuges from a FEMA camp where things were getting ugly (33). As fans will remember in another as dramatic moment, it was revealed that mercenaries based loosely on those belonging to the Blackwater corporation were using just such a facility as the excuse they had for coming to raid the town’s supplies.
Of course, this story has to be totally fictional. For it was based on reality, the discontented would never have been allowed to leave as transpired with those seeking to leave the Superdome turned back at gunpoint during Hurricane Katrina operations.
By Frederick Meekins
No doubt a preview of how the government will allow illegals to create a climate of intimidation to keep average Americans in line.
According to this informative article, many of the directors of the Biblical literacy project believe in the confiscation of individual firearms and herald Lenin as a leader in the tradition of Moses.
According to Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio on its February 7, 2007 broadcast, those preferring the anonymity of city life to the in-your-business mentality that can surprisingly pervade rural existence are vagabonds the moral equivalent of Cain.
As his expert witness, Swanson interviews R.C. Sproul.
In contrast to the “transiency” both Swanson and Sproul condemn, apparently Sproul believes COMMUNITY is so binding that the individual should not be permitted to leave.
Interesting how prominent Christian leaders suggesting we sublimate ourselves to the identity of the group continue to insist upon the notoriety of their celebrity names.
An analysis by Joseph Farah how terrorists would not need an accurate nuclear strike to wipe out the United States but merely an electromagnetic pulse.
In an episode of the Simpsons lampooning gender-based education, Principal Skinner is so rattled by radical feminists that by the end of the episode in despair he cries out for someone to tell him what to think.
Likewise, White Americans are constantly told that it is racist to now to judge people as individuals and even more of an outrage if we do not eagerly embrace the practices of other cultures.
However, a group of Clemson University students are being investigated for a party where malt liquor was consumed and particpants dressed as "gangstas".
Since this soiree took place off campus, why is it anymore immoral than the other drunken, tasteless shenanigins that go on in college towns across the country that we are told are no one's business except for those participating in them?
by Frederick Meekins
Anyone claiming this characterization is to strong should first answer why the law granting him nearly unlimted power has been referred to as an "enabling law"for the purposes of implementing "maximum revolution".
An interesting speech by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily where he points out that, while the Red Chinese and Russian governments have built fallout shelters for their people, no such measures are being provided for American citizens.
While there is nothing wrong with buying any size house you want, interesting how a member of the political party making its way into power with the message that you as a regular American have too much and ought to have the vast majority of it taxed away to provide for those whose only skills include loafing about and having kids they refuse to take care of has himself purchased a 29,000 square foot mansion.
For reference purposes, if you have a house or apartment of about 1,000 square feet, that means this ambulance chases domicile is almost 30 times larger than yours.
Perhaps someone should point this out the next time Democrats drone on about us using up a disproportionate amount of the earth's resources.
by Frederick Meekins
Rosa Parks earned her place in American iconography for refusing to go to the back of the bus. But at least she would have been permitted to remain on the bus, which would have been more than is being allowed for three Saint Paul school children who were kicked off a bus, they were initially told, because they were no longer good enough to ride the bus because they spoke English.
According to a KSTP.com titled ‘Kids kicked off a bus for speaking English”, bus service along the route in question was now reserved for students other than those speaking English because of the importance of keeping the non-English speaking pupils together.
Illegals are often of the mind now that since they supposedly pay into the tax system, that should somehow earn them a slot at the government trough. But what about boring, run of the mill citizens born here and who don’t get special holidays and entire months set aside celebrating what they happened to be upon emerging from their mother’s birth canal, aren’t they just as deserving of the services they are having increasingly high taxes taken from and assessments levied against them to pay for?
Those enamored by all things foreign and repulsed as equally by all things American will respond that these children must be kept together since they might get lost since they don’t speak English. If that’s the case, perhaps it should be the non-English speaking parents that are leveled with the responsibility of taking their children to and from school rather than the English-speaking citizen. For if we are to constantly have it thrown in our faces how those coming here came from such far-flung corners of the world, they shouldn’t have too much of a problem getting their children to school on time since they have obviously demonstrated a mastery of geography.
Scheming bureaucrats in the St. Paul case appear that they will be able to wiggle out of this one over the technicality that the aggrieved family is no longer eligible for bus service since it has been discovered that they had moved beyond the boundaries of this particular school. Interesting how this fact was not made an issue until after the pupils were kicked off the bus for the outrage of verbalizing in English.
Sticklers and regulation fetishists will drone on how the students no longer had any business on the bus and maybe they are right. However, I wonder just how many of the non-English speaking students live beyond these inviolable frontiers enforced upon the utterers of American idiom and diction; more importantly, I wonder how many have parents that aren’t even here legally.
As the nation’s schools increasingly come to resemble the linguistic confusion at the Tower of Babel where the non-English speaking come to predominate and the handouts and preferences they militate for proliferate, I wonder how many other American children across the country have been denied access to school transportation because of what manner of language flows from their lips but the parents have not stepped forward to expose the conniving of bilingualism for either fear of some kind of retaliation by multiculturalists or as the result of higher order cognitive conditioning (brainwashing) where he have had it pounded into our heads that only “racists” oppose the obliteration of America’s socio-linguistic identity.
With Black History Month just around the corner, in the coming weeks we will hear on and on about various civil rights protests such as lunch-counter sit-ins and of valiant souls asserting their God-given rights by refusing to give up their seats just because someone with a bit of authority in his belly wearing a uniform told them to. The next time a child is told they cannot board a bus or ordered to disembark for any reason other than misbehavior such as, oh lets say, because they happen to speak English or for not belonging to a specific ethnic group being granted an accommodation denied to every other child at school, they should simply refuse to comply with the order. What better way for students to learn of the importance of standing up for themselves even when its not popular with those wielding power?
Dutiful statists will shriek “How dare you instruct a fellow American to disobey non-police authority!!!!!!” But aren’t I merely encouraging them to follow the example set by either Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King?
For if you think it was OK for these Black leaders to disobey authorities that have transgressed legitimate boundaries but inappropriate for a member of the majority being disadvantaged by the ruling elite to do so, it must be pointed out that it is you, my hyperpluralist colleague, that may be the one suffering ethnocentric prejudice.
by Frederick Meekins
A testimony, broadcast on Peering Into Darkness Radio, of how a former MUFON researcher eventually came to use his knowledge of the supernatural for the cause of Christ .
Under a Bush proposal to be presented in the president's state of the union address, those whose health insurance plans cost employers $15,000 or more could face higher taxes if they do not switch to less costly plans.
This is being done in part to finance health insurance for those that do not now have medical coverage.
Since these deductions will be $15,000 per family and $7500 for singles, one is compelled to ask will singles with health plans costing over $7500 get hosed and left holding the bag.
Frankly, I am sick and tired of going to work so some people can go out and screw until their brains rot and return with a litany of offspring they have no intentions of taking care of.
As my grandpappy use to observe of the promiscious, if she had has many sticking out of her as in her, she'd look like a bunch of bananas. Maybe if these reprobates worked somewhere other than on their backs, they could afford their own health insurance.
by Frederick Meekins
It has been said that we have come as far as we have only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. One of the strengths of ethics when studied as part of a survey of Western civilization has been the discipline’s emphasis on consulting the accumulated wisdom of the past. However, in doing so one must not fail to apply these principles to the situations arising in our own time.
Talbot School of Theology Professor Scott Rae in “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” maintains this balance by not only analyzing the foundations of this field as set forth in Biblical and historical sources as well as more contemporary systems but also by examining a number of issues arising from advances in technology.
“Moral Choices” is an excellent resource for believers to investigate the complexities of this field of study since Rae does not overly advocate any one particular position per say but rather examines both sides by comparing where each either measures up to or falls short of either the outright teachings of Scripture or the traditional ethical norms derived from sacred revelation. The student will also come away with a better understanding of the legal or scientific developments giving rise to these disputes.
For example, some of the issues examined in Moral Choices include abortion, reproductive technology, human cloning, and physician assisted suicide.
In regards to abortion, Rae builds a Biblical position on the topic centering around the Fifth Commandment (Thou shalt not murder) by showing how this injunction applies to the fetus since the child in question retains a distinct personhood from conception onward until death. Rae also goes into the background of a number of court decisions establishing the legal framework for this procedure in the United States such as Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
C.P. Snow lamented in “The Two Cultures And The Scientific Revolution” of the widening gulf between those educated in the humanities and those schooled in the hard sciences. Moral Choices does a commendable job of bridging the gap.
Often average citizens shy away from these complex issues for lack of understanding the science involved. However, by defining terms related to reproductive technologies and genetic engineering such as somatic cell gene therapy (the addition of a gene), somatic cell nuclear transfer (the taking of cells from an adult and placing them in an egg in order to grow a clone), and an overview of various infertility treatments such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection and intrafallopian transfer, “Moral Choices” won’t qualify the reader to be a Doctor Frankenstien but will certainly give the concerned laymen a better idea of what exactly goes on in the lab late at night.
Like stage magicians, often scientific and philosophical elites prefer to dazzle the common man by keeping much of the process by which they arrive at their proclamations shrouded in secrecy. “Moral Choices” by Scott Rae not only applies fundamental ethical principles to the daunting challenges facing society today but also provides the steps helping one to arrive at an informed decision.
The steps are as follows: (1) Gather the facts. (2) Determine the ethical claims. (3) Determine what principles have bearing on the case. (4) List the alternatives. (5) Compare the alternatives with the principles. (6) Consider the consequences. (7) Make a decision.
“Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” begins with the question “Why Be Moral?”. From considering the ramifications of the issues examined in the text, the reader will conclude how can we afford not to?
by Frederick Meekins
On the Jan 12, 2007 edition of the Albert Mohler Program, there was an interesting discussion about several Virginia congregations withdrawing from the Episcopal Church.
Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Seminary said that, while the move is legitimate, it would be the sin of divisiveness and faction to leave a church over the matter of music.
I ask you dear reader, why must those cherishing the great hymns of the faith sit there and subject their ears to idiotic lyrics or salacicous rhythms?
Why isn't it just sometimes classier to sneak out the door never to return?
Would Dr. Moore rather these ecclesio-beatniks be run out of town on the next train?
Were that to occurr, those like him would probably lecture the rest of us as to how it is our duty to submit to those so much more "spiritual" than the rest of us.
by Frederick Meekins
In discussing her book Thrill Of The Chaste: Finding Fullfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On on the Albert Mohler Show, journalist Dawn Eden made an observation that many young adult or singles ministries are centered around drinking.
This author is to be commended for exposing what is probably a little known and shocking fact.
I myself came across this startling truth when I was visiting a PCA Presbyterian Church (a supposedly more conservative denomination) off and on a few years back.
Though I never attended any of the functions since I could just as easily stay home and feel like less of a total outcast since hardly anyone in the Sunday school class would hardly even speak to me at church so why bother elsewhere, it always seemed an inordinate number of the e-mail invitations for class social functions mentioned alcohol would be present.
Interestingly, this shortcoming was never brought up in class even though I was reamed a new one in discussion and in an email exchange with the Associate Pastor of the church that led the Young Adult class about my short coming of exhibiting"individualistic tendencies" and not becoming a dutiful member of the COMMUNITY, and one student from China was excoriated on the listserv for questioning the propriety of holding a babyshower for a member of the class that spawned outside of marriage.
However, the blame cannot be placed solely on the indiscretions of youth.
After all, for in this case, they are only mimicing the behavior of their elders.
And in this case, I literally mean elders. For eventually pictured on the pages of the Washington Post in a story about a men's book disucssion was a photo of two elders of this church in question boozing it up in some bar.
Though one does not like to see people injured or maimed, can you imagine the almost comic irony of a headline reading something like "Family Killed By Drunk Driver Leaving Church Function"?
by Frederick Meekins
One of the more recent James Bond movies was titled “The World Is Not Enough”. It would seem the expression also summarizes Donald Trump’s worldview and philosophy of life.
Not satisfied trying to maneuver New Orleans residents and little old ladies out of their property standing in the way of his expansive domain, the famed tycoon is now taking it upon himself to acquire the rights to the First Amendment, grant access to it to whomever he pleases, and demand the masses venerate him like some deluded Roman Emperor. Responding to remarks made by Rosie O’Donnell on The View regarding the irony of someone of Trump’s questionable reputation standing in judgment over the propriety of Miss USA’s inebriated deportment, Trump is threatening to sue.
But on what grounds does he have standing? It is pretty much public perception that Trump got his boost in life with the help of daddy’s money and that Donald has come perilously close to bankruptcy.
He must think he is so rich that he ought to be able to expunge the historical record to suit his own fancy.
If Trump is going to try and corner Rosie on something other than hurt feelings, what is it going to be? Wouldn’t for charges of slander or defamation it have to be proven that Rosie knowingly uttered false statements?
Most of the time, when the average person is ridiculed for something they have said or done (even if enunciated against them unfairly or inaccurately), we stew about it for a while and then go on our merry way. If Trump demands to be fawned over and catered to to this degree or he’s going to fly off the handle, no wonder his first two marriage didn’t last and it prompts you to speculate how long the third will endure.
If we are going to fall for the assertion that Trump’s reputation might be damaged as a result of O’Donnel’s allegations, then why isn’t he as eager to go after late night monologist Jay Leno for musing that Trump went easy on Miss USA because she has a luscious bosom? Doesn’t such a comment impinge upon Trump’s character as much as O’Donnell’s since it insinuates he’s not willing to apply rules objectively but rather stroke them for something that jiggles and catches his eye?
Does anybody in a position to do business with Donald Trump really care what Rosie O’Donnell has to say anyway? After all, they are probably just as lecherous as he is.
Those among the 49% thinking the First Amendment is an impediment to an orderly society that ought to be curtailed will argue that obnoxious louts like Rosie O’Donnell need to be reined in. Yet it must be pointed out that Trump not only responds this way to the obnoxious most would consider needing to be taken down a beg or two but also more serious journalists as well.
In Give Me A Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, Scam Artists, And Became The Scourge Of The Liberal Media, John Stossel writes about exposing Trump’s efforts to force an elderly widow out of her home of over 30 years so that a parking lot could be built for one of his gambling dens. For daring to call the tycoon a “bully”, Stossel was warned, “Nobody talks to me that way (25).” Stossel muses that maybe someone should.
There is nothing wrong with the hyperrich accumulating vast fortunes. However, such monetary resources should not allow them to trump the basic rights of the rest of us deemed to be beneath their elevated status.
by Frederick Meekins
Rumors are flying that there might be an 11th Doctor Who on the horizon.
One source justifying the potential tweeking of the role said, "Doctor Who is still seen as a bit geeky but Jason will add sex appeal and give the character a more dangerous edge."
Since Doctor Who has been around since the 1960's, the character must have some kind of staying power.
It has been said that the largest sex organ is the brain, so why can't the allure of a character be found in the character's personality, enthusiasm, or moral purpose?
Doctor Whos does not have to be Captain Kirk bedding every Orion slave girl he comes across.
If Doctor Who is not attractive, then why does he seem to attract a litany of female followers who drop everything to follow him in his adventures?
by Frederick Meekins
While Kevin Swanson is to be commended for pointing out the immaturity of those camped out on the sidewalk awaiting the release of the latest video game system, as usual he has allowed his youth-marriage obsession cloud what would have otherwise been an insiteful monologue.
According to Swanson, the mature young man is able to provide for a family by that age.
For starters, I like to know what he thinks the prices of real estate are these days because in my area even shacks and dumps are pushing almost $300,000 and this is to say nothing of property taxes that are on the verge of pushing the $3000 a year mark with them possibly going higher in the future if assessments continue to rise.
More importantly, seems to me that the mature young person (either male or female) would put off marriage these days realzing that the pleasures of matrimony are not worth the price of a shattered life in light of the inferior partners on the market today, many of whom are swilling in sexually transmitted diseases, dragging along children born out of wedlock in tow, and dress like prostitutes.
If a young person has kept themselves physically pure, why should they settle for someone that has not and have to provide for children they had no pleasure in producing?
The blood of Christ might wash away a multitude of sins, but it does not fuel a time machine that goes back and wipes out mistakes.
by Frederick Meekins
It has been said that socially Evangelicalism is five to ten years “behind” the broader culture. John Warwick Montgomery once remarked that America was where old German heresies went to die, meaning that eventually the intellectual refuse of the elite came to infect the American church no matter how reluctant the bride of Christ in the United States might have initially been to such doctrinal fads.
Back in the 90’s, Evangelicals looked on in astonishment as Postmodernists from lofty chairs in academia went about undermining the notion that one should not be judged by the color of one’s skin but rather by the content of one’s character. Instead. these deconstructionists suggested that one should be assessed primarily as a member of one’s herd and judged in light of either the sins or disadvantages of one’s forefathers.
As a result, whereas in years previous those of certain backgrounds struggled to take their place in and recognized as full members of society, the trend reversed itself and those skilled in exploiting past resentments were able to shame the majority into allowing certain demographic classifications to cordon themselves off as they saw fit while denying this proclivity to the members of the most numerous group. Though conservative Christians initially bucked such a trend by admonishing that it is ultimately the individual that Jesus died and rose from the dead for and will whom be judged, they too are now succumbing to this social pressure.
Among Evangelicals eager for the accolades of the elite, one popular refrain invoked to show just how tolerant certain leaders can be is that 11 am Sunday is the most segregated hour in America, bemoaning the fact that most Christians prefer to worship with members of their own ethnicity even if they do not harbor blatant ill will or hostility to their fellow coreligionists of different backgrounds. Upon closer examination, one will see that it is a condemnation few ashamed of being White are reluctant to level at minorities as well.
Despite the fact that many denominations do not have the demographic ratios those so obsessed with race to prove to the world that they are not obsessed with race clamor for, a number of them do have memberships consisting of a variety of ethnic groups. But instead of capitalizing on this situation by not harping on racial differences and allowing believers to find their own dynamic equality, those running these religious associations as their own private ecclesiastical syndicates refuse to let sleeping denominations lie and hope to accrue power for themselves by playing the same racial spoils game popular in more liberal circles.
Commemorating the birth of the Lord of all mankind and the Savior of believers from every nation, tribe, and tongue, one would think that all Christians could celebrate Christmas without reference to color. However, even this cherished festival is degenerating into a front for radical social engineering.
On December 2, 2006, the Mid-Atlantic District of the Church Of The Nazarene held an African American Christmas Dinner. To those conditioned into embracing such directives from their handlers without question, such an affair might not seem all that out of the ordinary. But unless chitterlings and collard greens are going to be the main course on the menu, does an African American Christmas differ all that appreciably from the Christmas of any other American group?
As to whether or not a denomination should be hosting such a function, we should ask ourselves would it be appropriate to convene a “Caucasian” or more precisely, a “European American Christmas Dinner”? If the prospect of such an event leaves you a bit squeamish (as it probably should), then why do we put up with or, shall we say, tolerate such extravaganzas when they are convened for groups more favored by the ruling clique?
In James 2, the believer is warned against showing favoritism and in I Corinthians 11, the church is admonished regarding these matters in reference to the Lord’s Supper and meals eaten in His name. If this command applies to something that may be earned such as wealth, how much more so in pertaining to a characteristic the individual has absolutely no control over.
by Frederick Meekins
In light of “The Crisis on Infinite Earths” that rest asunder the parallel dimensions of the DC Comics multiverse, the 1980’s were a time of innovation and reinterpretation for the Man of Steel.
“Superman In The Eighties” is an anthology giving readers a taste of this costumed hero’s adventures on both sides of the Infinite Earths saga.
Rather than a comprehensive chronology, the compilation consists of a series of vignettes providing considerable insight into this beloved icon of contemporary American folklore.
A number of the tales included tug at the heart as much as they regale with action and adventure.
In one story published before the John Byrne “Man of Steel” miniseries where aspects of the Superman mythos were updated or tweaked, aliens transport Jonathan Kent through time to see what becomes of Clark in the future after his adopted father has already passed on.
In another, Superman confronts his own pride when the Specter reminds Superman that they are realms reserved for God Himself.
And in a third, Superman comes face to face with childhood versions of his creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster on an earth where alien invaders have manipulated the timestream to eradicate the concepts of heroism and imagination from human culture in order to make the earth easier to conquer.
“Superman In The Eighties” will make a valuable reference for any graphic novel library or comic collection.
by Frederick Meekins
In the Superman comics, Bizarro is a twisted clone of Superman that perceives things backwards such as bad being good, up being down, and left being right. As intense as the annual Christmas conflagrations have become over the past few years, it was only a matter of time before those wishing to stand for decency and common sense found themselves in an unsettling situation where the usual roles were reversed.
In a number of short stories I have written such as “The Schauungtown Chronicles” and “An U.N.I.Q.U.E. Individual”, an organization known as the Toleration Fellowship set in a world governed by an elaborate system of homeowner associations suppresses traditional religious expression on behalf of secularists and New Age mystics in the name of inclusion and diversity. The Toleration Fellowship uses as its insignia the upside-down broken-cross peace symbol.
In a case in Colorado, it seems these roles have been reversed. A woman in a homeowner association there was being threatened with a fine of $25 a day for hanging on her home on private property a wreath in the shape of the peace sign. A number of residents took offense because the peace sign can also be interpreted as a Satanic symbol celebrating the defeat of Christ.
And even though the connections between New Age peaceniks and Luciferians are not exposed as nearly as much as they ought to be, so what in regards to what this lady wants to hang on the side of her house? It’s not like she tried to hang this on the side of someone else’s house or painted a naked lady tied to an altar. It’s just a round wreath not that much different than anybody else’s.
This is America and private property should still mean something. However, if we dig below the surface of this story that tickles our Christmas cackles we will see a much more ominous threat here than even whether or not a beloved Christmas decoration conforms to acceptable standards and that issue is about out of control homeowner associations.
Those in the “all rules must be obeyed simply because they are rules even if they say toss your granny into oncoming traffic” crowd will argue that membership in these organizations is voluntary. Is it though?
For if the individual wants to live in a particular neighborhood, they are informed almost as an after thought in many cases once the real estate transaction is completed that they must render homage as a vassal unto his feudal lord if they desire to remain in their newly procured domicile. And like any other serf living on a manor, the member of the homeowner association is bound by a pledge of obedience to whatever rules and bylaws the peasant’s betters might decide to promulgate.
Those enthusiastic to have every detail of their lives micromanaged down to the smallest degree that, if these kinds of rules are not enforced, the order and aesthetics making these developments desirable places to dwell will not be maintained. However, from analyzing just how extensive these kinds of regulations have become over the years, one has to ask are these governing boards more concerned about maintaining order or imposing a uniformity of thought upon the residents.
For what harm can a wreath with a couple extra sprigs of greenery strategically placed cause to property values. However, to the totalist mind such a decoration poses a greater threat to the COMMUNITY than a rusted car up on four cement blocks with rats living in it.
In several press accounts, it was initially reported that a decoration interpreted as being against the war could not be countenanced since it might foments DIVISIVENESS, one of the few remaining offenses worse than INDIVIDUALISM with the only greater wrongs perhaps being “racism” or “homophobia”. Thus, conformity to the group norm even in matters not even related to decorum or safety become even more important than liberties once considered foundational such as free expression and conscience. Specifics of the Second Gulf War asides, funny, I thought those qualities were some of the primary reasons justifying intervention abroad.
So long as no one goes to slashing tires and stuffing dead cats into mail boxes, what’s wrong with a little neighborhood division as it will actually prove good for everyone in the long run. It is in areas where everyone is forced to swallow the expression of their convictions for fear o f incurring some kind of legal penalty or social sanction as authorized under speech codes against “hate speech” and the like that such violence and vandalism usually occur.
Eventually, the homeowners association backed down from taking action against the peace sign. Ironically, that is itself a disturbing sign from a certain perspective.
For the governing board did not ultimately back down from its position having realized they had infringed upon the property rights and the dignity of the individual homeowner but rather because of the intensity of the response to their initial decision. Thus, things are not determined to be right or wrong by their relation to some eternal unchanging standard but whether or not they conform to the group consensus. Or as my family, who even though they don’t live in a homeowners association, were informed by a neighbor with whom we had gotten into a verbal altercation that they did not have to respect our property because, “No one likes you all anyway.”
This year, the unorthodox Yuletide decoration will be allowed to remain. But what is to protect its hanger when public opinion turns; does it really then become wrong to hang whatever greenery one wants on the side of their domicile?
Apart from the salvation found only in His Son Jesus Christ, God’s greatest gift to humanity is none other than the freedom we enjoy as beings created in His image. Thus one of the most profound yet subtle forms of blasphemy is none other than handing this precious heritage over to either individuals or organizations that were never meant to exert control to such an extent over our lives.
by Frederick Meekins
According to Kevin Swanson, now you are a rotten Christian if you don't let neighbors and strangers rummage though your house.
Swanson discusses the issue of hospitality in light of the Christmas season.
As expected, much of this is advocated from an intelligence gathering perspective so that ecclesiastical overseers and the like may gather a dossier as to what the individual under surveillance (er I mean being visited) is like away from more formal settings such as work or church.
I think some evangelist, pastor, or apologist ought to do a series on the neglected "mind your own business doctrine".
Frankly though, if you've had nothing to do with me the remainder of the year, don't bother with me at Christmas time (as well as with funerals and the like) because obviously you are not reaching out in friendship but rather out of some expectation of that I assuage your guilty conscience for treating me like dirt the rest of the time.
by Frederick Meekins
And I was called a nut and worse for my recent column pertaining to this under-reported topic.
To learn more about this movement known as the Nashi, check out their wikipedia entry. Sound a bit like a cross between the Hitler Youth and the SA or Freikorps.
Syfyportal.com is reporting that a new web-based animated Star Trek is being proposed.
The six minute episodes will be set 150 years after the time of Next Generation in the aftermath of a war with the Romulans where something happens and vast sectors of the galaxy can no longer be reached by warp drive.
From the description, it sounds a bit like Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.
Interestingly, more condemnation will be heaped upon him over a few impolite comments to slip from his drunken lips than that he fathered a child outside of marriage.
This broadcast of Generations Radio of Kevin Swanson is creative and comical as it is presented as radion in the year 2015.
In a land as prosperous as that of the United States, from time to time parents must remind their offspring that the Christmas season is not suppose to be as much about the gift as about the sentiment behind the present. However, as charities themselves degenerate into bloated bureaucracies more concerned about perpetuating themselves than about assisting the downtrodden, those administering these organizations no longer view the giving public as the real heroes behind what use to be considered grassroots eleemosynary but rather as dimwitted cogs to be lectured as to how the acts once perceived as selfless are actually reactionary gestures undermining the progressive vision of their enlightened betters.
Even within my own short life thus far, at one time Toys for Tots was grateful to receive any new toy or even a good used one in reasonable condition (as from my own experience I can tell you that a second-hand Millennium Falcon is as nearly as much a delight as one fresh out of the box). However, like a spoiled child getting too much at Christmas, now not only aren’t second-hand toys not good enough for these philanthropic agencies, but now they also dictate what kinds of new ones may be donated as well.
Before having their rears handed to them and deciding to reverse their position as a result of the public humiliation, Toys for Tots initially turned down a donation of 4,000 Bible quoting Jesus dolls not because the figurines might be seen as a tad tacky but rather because the doll might offend non-Christian families such as Jews and Muslims. As a charity distributing its beneficences based upon the destitution of the intended recipients, when was the last time a Jewish family even qualified for goodies from Toys for Tots?
Seriously though, if an individual finds Christmas (and more importantly) the Christ inspiring this particular celebration so odious, why are they accepting gifts anyway? If this charity is being thrust upon the recipients against their will in the same spirit of “we’re doing this for your own good whether you want it or not” characterizing many of the programs directed at manipulating those targeted into accepting their status as “underprivileged”, perhaps its is Toys for Tots that needs the cliched lecture about not imposing its values on others rather than the American people receiving a lecture on the matter from Toys for Tots.
If those paraded before us these days as destitute can be as selective of the charity bestowed upon them as Jabba the Hutt at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it’s about time that a civic dialogue was convened to consider whether or not Toys For Tots has outlived its usefulness. For in the current retail environment with a Wal-Mart in nearly every county and a dollar store in almost every other strip mall, frankly if you can’t afford to buy your kid a small toy, a $0.75 pack or notebook paper, and a Snicker’s bar or two, one really ought not to be doing the kinds of things that result in children in the first place.
No where does it say your progeny are entitled to Lionel Trains, Tonka Trunks, or Nintendo Sets under the Christmas tree. Maybe if these parents didn’t spend their money on gold teeth, pierced noses, and nightclub boogie dances, they wouldn’t need the Marines (or at least the Reservists) to charge in to save Christmas.
Over the past decade or so, one has come to expect secularists to get their dander up over Christmas. Surprisingly, even Christian organizations that don’t have all that much of a problem using the Christmas season as an excuse to pander for handouts are now themselves thinking they are too good for the religious underpinnings of Christmas.
Over the last several years, Franklin Graham has earned a reputation for being outspoken about certain trends prominent in the world today. However, if certain developments within the family’s ecclesiastical domain are any indication, it seems Junior may have developed a touch of daddy’s degenerative spine disorder where one becomes so accustomed to the accolades of world leaders and the influential that such praise slowly becomes just as important as standing for the uncompromised truth.
As part of Samaritan’s Purse, Operation Christmas Child is a program organized to distribute Christmas gift boxes to children in impoverished nations around the world. One would think little controversy would erupt as theoretically the program involves little more that the distribution of gift boxes assembled by well-meaning believers and delivered to enthusiastic youngsters.
However, even this has turned into yet another scheme for fostering political correctness around the globe. In being taught a lesson in gratitude and appreciation, most children learn to say a polite thank you and not to complain in front of the giver should they find something they don’t care for when they open a present (after all, you can always regift if the giver is not that close of an acquaintance). Yet now contemporary Christian leaders are so concerned about offending international sensibilities (i.e. afraid a Muslim is going to riot) that these ministries have issued elaborate decrees on what the average believer may or may not give.
For example, according to a Daily Mail story entitled, “Christian charity bans Christian themed children’s gifts”, Samaritan’s Purse has expressly banned “war-related items such as Action Man-type figures.” So basically anything a young heterosexual adolescent boy would want to play with. Sure, toy cars and planes might still be allowed, but if Ted Haggard hadn’t gotten caught letting another man shift his gears, one wonders how long it would have been until these had been banned as well since, according to the limpwristed pansies coming to predominate the ranks of Evangelical leadership, these modes of transportation are coming to be seen as just as evil as the implements of war (unless of course you happen to be one of those bigshot leaders who will still be permitted to jet around the world telling the rest of us just how evil we are for manifesting the disease of individualism as embodied by driving our own automobiles to work and refusing to carpool).
Peaceniks will respond that the last thing boys need in these mudhole countries is additional encouragement to make war. If that’s the case, I hope the girls will be denied baby dolls as the last thing they need to be encouraged to is to have more kids, though it might be politically incorrect to say, the rest of us are going to have to pay for in terms of foreign aide or as the result of one too many missionary sob stories playing on the guilt pounded into our own psyches over the fact for simply being American.
Unfortunately, there is even more at stake than the lads of the Third World being feminized to the same degree as their counterparts here in the West. For not only is male vitality to be removed but the strength of explicitly Christian convictions as well.
We rubes sitting in the pews with our limited mental capacity would no doubt conclude that the primary reason for sending Christmas boxes overseas would be to tell the children there about Jesus Christ since, as unpopular as the idea might be, those without Him still die and go to Hell even in this age of runaway tolerance. However, our theological betters (at least those in endowed positions that keep reminding us they are our theological betters) would tell us that the best way to tell someone about Jesus is to not tell them about Jesus at all.
For while Christians are free to jam the boxes with assorted miscellany, items of a religious nature are promptly removed. Despite claming to do it for fear of offending non-Christians, it makes you wonder what percentage of objects attained through this pious five-finger discount end up under the trees and in the stockings of the offspring of Samaritan’s Purse personnel.
Frankly, if those these gifts are being sent to are all that hostile towards information about Jesus that mere mention of His name is going to send the recipient into homicidal conniptions, perhaps missionaries to these countries in question should pullback to the lands of the West and fortify our borders by refusing to let anymore from these nations into our countries and work on converting those already here.
Those studying institutional change over time will note that usually religious organizations with even the best of intentions inevitably slide towards theological liberalism. And like the fate that befell the mainline denominations, eventually confusion and distorted purpose will come to grip the administration of Operation Christmas Child and Samaritan’s Purse if steps are not taken now to curb the “sensitivity” tide.
Most of the time, a good Christmas story rings with an eternal truth that cannot be denied. It seems the truth in this tale is that you are better off donating your charity dollar to an organization that you yourself have direct contact with such as a reliable church, a family that you know, or maybe your own savings account for when you’re old the way Social Security is headed the only charity that will be there to lend you a helping will be you yourself.
Those duped by the professional altruists might be shocked by such a statement. Such noble outrage would be better directed towards those manipulating our sympathies through direct mail fundraising and the like.
By Frederick Meekins
This basically means that if you conqueor a nation or take a castle in an on-line role playing game that one day you might be held liable for taxes on it as if it was a physical piece of property.
I guess next those of us with blogs, websites, and e-groups will be charged tax on each hit or page view.
One might say the same thing of talk radio hosts such as Swanson.
According to Swason and his sidekick, Christian Internet service providers should block blogs that do not have established ecclesiastical oversight.
Of these fans of Luther and Calvin, I ask did these Protestant forefathers bend their knees to their clerical betters when the truth was on the side of the outsiders?
For years, whispers have ebbed and flowed across the currents of cyberspace that the U.S. government had plans on the drawing board for the establishment of detention and relocation camps to heard massive swaths of the population into during times of declared national emergency.
Haughty sophisticates regularly dismissed such nuggets of information, claiming such warnings were the ravings of kooks and the paranoid. However, at last more mainstream news sources are willing to admit such holding pens of dubious constitutionality are in the works.
According to a FoxNews.com report titled “Critics Fear Emergency Centers Could Be Used For Immigration Round-Ups”, a contract has been granted to a subsidiary of Halliburton no less for the establishment of emergency relocation centers for use during a national disaster or immigration crisis. Though marketed as a way to house illegals as they are processed back to their countries of origin, the American people need to be warned this might not be the only purpose for such facilities.
For starters, as Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi points out in the FoxNews.com story, “An emergency is basically anything DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) deems an emergency.” Thus Americans could theoretically be herded into such facilities over reasons far less ominous than natural disasters and calamities.
This is especially dangerous in light of rulings such as the Kelo decision that imbue the rich and powerful with a nearly unimpeachable infallibility. What’s to stop some unscrupulous developers from getting their puppets in government from declaring an “aesthetic emergency” or something just as ridiculous in a less than picturesque area and cart the residents off to some holding area while their houses are torn down? Or since feigned concern over obesity is all the rage, what is to prevent the government from declaring a “nutritional emergency” and haul the chronically gluttonous off to mandatory fat camp?
Don’t laugh. When he was drug czar, Bill Bennett toyed with the idea of snatching kids from their parents in drug-plagued neighborhoods. And at this very moment, the United States is in the middle of any number of declared national emergencies.
Basically, most of the Executive Orders --- regulations promulgated by the President with dubious legality since they were not authorized by Congress --- are already on the books permitting authorities to seize your property, drop you in a camp, and force you to perform slave labor. All that has to be done is to set up facilities and for the President (or whoever might be running the show on that dark day for our country) to give the go-head.
Secondly, shouldn’t the American people be concerned that this so-called “civil defense” matter is being farmed out to the private sector. Many so-called Conservatives kneel so worshipfully at the altar of big business that they claim that protections such as the Bill of Rights and other legal niceties should not apply in a private sector context.
From the tone of the FoxNews.com article, one gets the impression that these proposed facilities will be administered along the lines of a for profit enterprise. As such, are there any guarantees that those corralled into these slaughterhouses will be guaranteed the fundamental liberties and protections we currently enjoy as Americans? Or will the first occupants, when they arrive, be told that they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States but rather under the authority of what amounts to the monster offspring of a prison and an out-of-control homeowners association.
Have a complaint about the food. Get back handed across the face. Object to the guards pawing at your buxom wife or teenage daughter, and you get a broom handle up your rectum.
“You’re out of your mind,” the mentally delicate will respond. Am I?
Such abuses already take place by rogue elements of law enforcement. Won’t such behaviors be even more widespread when that annoying Constitution and Bill of Rights are finally done away with once and for all?
Frankly, these kinds of places are hardly run properly when theoretically subject to public scrutiny. Americans would do well to follow the ongoing saga of Katrina recovery as it serves as a kind of experimental case study of the kind of future being planned for the vast majority of us.
According to a WorldNetDaily story titled “FEMA Lifts Reporter Ban”, it has been discovered that until exposed FEMA was forbidding those living in trailer parks set up by the government relief agency from talking with the press without having a Homeland Security handler present. FEMA goons kicked a reporter out of a trailer to which the reporter had been invited by the resident and ordered --- ordered mind you --- another resident back into her trailer that dared to speak to a reporter through a chainlink fence. The last time I checked, losing one’s home in a natural disaster did not make one a felon that had forfeited his rights.
Perhaps the most disheartening thing about the Fox News story bringing this neglected issue to the attention of a more generalized segment of the news-consuming public is that of all the sources researched are prominent names on the left side of the political spectrum such as AlterNet, The Progressive, and two Democratic members of Congress. Claiming to have a political philosophy taking into account the depravity of man unlike their progressivist counterparts given over more to utopian delusions, shouldn’t Conservatives be the ones warning of the dangers to human liberties posed by these detention facilities. For aren’t some of the most fearful words in the English language, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help”?
Conservatives backing these facilities because their guy is currently in office should be ashamed of themselves. Shouldn’t they realize that their man won’t always be in office. And even if the party of your choice held power now through the end of time, why does a proposal under consideration suddenly become immoral based upon which party backs the policy? Conservatives wouldn’t countenance plans openly plotting to establish civil detention camps under Clinton, then why accept such a measure under Bush?
By Frederick Meekins
I guess pinning the hopes of the human race on a White woman just couldn't be stomached.
Children are a blessing, but so is chocolate and you can obviously get too much of a good thing.
In an advertisement for a History Channel special about the Mayflower titled "Desperate Crossing", a child is depicted at a school pageant elaborating the misdeeds of the Pilgrims.
If such a documentary is to be justified on the grounds of historical accuracy and disclosure, which is not necessarily a bad thing if viewers are presented with a complete picture with both warts and triumphs, does this mean that come Martin Luther King Day that the History Channel will air a special detailing the marital infidelities and Communist associations of the famed civil rights leader?
Though the sermon “Long Range New Covenant Thinking: Early Marriage” by Ovid Need available at SermonAudio.com does a commendable job of explicating the passages regarding dominion over creation and of expounding the need to train children for family life, it uses these passages as cover to impose personal opinion as revealed doctrine.
According to Need, the sincere Christian desiring to fulfill God’s will weds at an early age. As proof, Need cites the passage in Proverbs 5:18 saying, “Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth” and notes that in Bible times often people were married by the age of eighteen for boys and sometimes as young as thirteen for girls (he conveniently fails to point out the abysmally low life expectancy prevalent in ancient times).
Part of the reason for this decree in favor of adolescent matrimony (perhaps not that young but one must wonder if Need is going to suggest we slavishly adhere to ancient Judaic practices and in his own comments insinuates 30 is too old to have not yet wed) is to curb the evil tendency in the male towards (ominous drum roll, please) --- INDEPENDENCE. Heaven forbid one enjoy a period in life without nagging.
In the sermon, Need criticizes those with a more “dispensationalist” perspective for overlooking those passages of Scripture that do not mesh with their own diminished theologies. One might argue he himself is guilty of the same shortcoming he warns against.
For while there are passages mentioning marriage in youth, there are just as many examples of those in the Bible marrying in “old age” (as Need might categorize the period in the figure’s existential chronology in which the figure entered matrimony) or outright warnings against marriage. For example, Isaac was forty when he married and Boaz insinuates that he is no spring chicken when Ruth comes onto him.
Other passages indicate one is better off remaining single than to marry the wrong person and end up with a shrew of a mate. Both Proverbs 21:9 and Proverbs 25:24 (thus indicating the importance of the warning if God is going to take His time and mention it twice in the pages of holy writ) intone it is better to live on the corner of a roof than in a house with a brawling wife (and it is just as true with such a husband).
Yet another interesting passage can be found in Matthew 24 which extols, “And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!” While no man knows the day or the hour of the Lord’s return, only a fool would deny that things are not waxing worse and worse in accord with II Timothy 3:13, thus making it so difficult to raise a family in such a setting that it might be best if people not marry all together if they believe that to be the prudent course of action.
However, as a Postmillenialist, Rev Need cannot afford to admit that things are getting worse as his eschatological hermeneutic compels him to believe that things will be getting better and better as Christ cannot return until after the Church ushers in the Kingdom of God here on earth. Frankly, such a development would itself be a nightmare as mankind is not able of implementing a perfect anything; the best we can hope for is a setting that attempts to create an equilibrium between individual privacy and the common good with the realization that the institutions used to uphold the common good are capable of undermining the very liberties they were intended to uphold.
by Frederick Meekins
It seems the wife of Senator Collins from the drama "Vanished" is not the only thing that has disappeared.
Those looking forward to the thriller will be disappointed to learn that the remaining episodes have been quietly shunted to the program’s MySpace.com page.
Frankly, who wants to watch TV over the Internet?
Though it was rumored about that the show would be ending in a few weeks, I guess the past few episodes were more than the powers that be were willing to tolerate.
Two weeks ago, one of the conspirators (who just happened to play a similar role on "John Doe" several years ago before that show was suspiciously cancelled after only one season for getting to close to the truth) slit his own throat as FBI agents closed in around him and last week Masonic operatives with RFID identification chips were depicted trying to decipher a secret code contained within one of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Are network executives really going to keep a straight face as they tell us that a two-hour block of Trading Spouses makes for much more compelling television?
By Frederick Meekins
An interesting discussion on "Issues Etc."
An interesting comparison between the megachurch phenomena and the incident of the golden calf recorded in Exodus.
