Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Trayvonites Threaten Human Sacrifice Of Pastor For Being Named George Zimmermann
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
HUD is collecting reams of demographic data so the agency can ruin numerous areas across the United States on the grounds that every American has the right to live in a COMMUNITY that they are proud of. But what if people believe that the kind of COMMUNITY they would be proudest of was overwhelmingly White and the few minorities deciding of their own choosing free of government interference were explicitly conservative in terms of their philosophical orientation? Furthermore, shouldn't we be disturbed by a government directing considerable resources attempting to ascertain and manipulate opinion in regards to a domestic policy issue?
Monday, July 22, 2013
Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office
Each of these spokesmen for the secularist perspective (though Williams made a fuss over his Episcopalianism which has been one of contemporary Christianity's most spineless forms) insinuated that one's position regarding origins somehow represents an intellectual deficiency if one does not enthusiastically embrace Darwinism. Perhaps we should take a moment to examine how this might impact a politician's political philosophy.
Often ultrasecularists assure we dimwitted rubes that religion has no bearing on the nuts and bolts issues voters really care about as the nation edges closer to financial ruination and social collapse. These days, one is as likely to hear this from certain varieties of grassroots conservatism as you are from ACLU types.
Even if evolution was true, what bearing does Rick Perry, Michelle Eichmann, or Sarah Patin believing the world was created six thousand years ago have on the proverbial price of tea in China? Given the worthlessness of the US dollar, such an example is no longer as merely rhetorical as it once was.
On the national level, it's not like a singular figure would be able to reverse the inertia of an entrenched technocratic bureaucracy steeped in scientism.
If a more creationist approach to science held sway in the jurisdictions where the aforementioned politicians enjoy a constituency, who are elites to criticize the prevailing conceptual framework?
After all, aren't these the same multiculturalists that dare anyone to criticize the adherents of a particular unmentioned religion who have a penchant for flying jetliners into skyscrapers and to strap sticks of dynamite to their chests.
Those thinking, to paraphrase Bernard Goldberg, that is is ignorant to believe that dinosaurs and human beings might have shared the earth at the same time apparently also believe that how the world came into existence impacts other areas of existence. That is a notion that they share with the Christian that actually just comes at the question from the opposite direction.
Since those wanting to shut God out or at least hold Him at bay in one's approach to one of life's most fundamental questions on what is constantly tauted as cable's most highly rated news program, perhaps we should examine these assumptions a little more closely.
Those holding to evolution believe everything is in a constant state of flux and change. There are no unaltering realities or lasting principles.
For example, Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion or speech, or the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Those might have been alright in the 1700's, but those provisions aren't meant for today since we have progressed so far beyond them, the evolutionary collectivist would argue.
Rights are not something we are endowed with by our Creator as individuals made in his image. Rather these protections are statutory provisions that can be extended and contracted for the benefit of the elite ruling any given society.
The contrasting perspective holds that every detail in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be taken literally. Such an assumption produces a number of worldview implications.
For example, the theist holding to the Genesis account generally believes that the individual is created in the image of God. This doctrine is taught in Genesis 1:26.
As such, the individual possesses an innate dignity and worth. The person is not some random conglomeration of cells to be manipulated, reconfigured, and even obliterated for no valid reason. Thus, those principles viewed as outdated and obsolete are often the only things that prevent us from being obliterated by those so deluded that they can remake the entire world in their own warped image.
By Frederick Meekins
People should be allowed to marry outside their race all they want. Just don't expect the rest of us to deny a fundamental anthropological fact that different races of human beings exist and that those that decide to breed with their own variety should not be condemned or that those that couple outside their phenotype aren't worthy of special applause.
Trayvon Martin's mother said her son was a child and acted as a child. So I guess "children" slam adult's heads against the concrete. If Trayvon was such a child, perhaps his parents should have made an effort to control him better. So I guess children should be allowed out to go purchase soda and Skiddles in the middle of the night?
Friday, July 19, 2013
In reference to an image morphing together Trayvon Martin's trademark hoodie and Martin Luther King's visage, King's niece Alveda assures that her uncle would have never worn one. But is there something inherently immoral about a hoodie? The garment meets nearly every conceivable standard of modesty. The garment is merely a sweatshirt/jacket with a hood attached and predates the ascent of ghetto culture. In Martin Luther King's time frame, gangsters often wore suits, ties, and fedoras. Does that mean that under those circumstances that honest upstanding citizens should never be found with those items in their wardrobe?
Bloomberg A Threat To Liberty On Multiple Levels
Regarding a potential loophole in proposed gun control legislation that would overlook the sale of a firearm within a family, Bloomberg said, "I would argue if you want to sell your gun to your son, maybe you have a problem in your family. Why don't you just give --- I don't know if you should have a gun or not, but if you have a commercial transaction of $100 with your son, there is something wrong in your family."
This is coming from an elected official so deluded in his own thinking to conclude that it is the place of government to tell you how much salt you can put on your food, what size soda you should be allowed to purchase, or even how much pain medication you should be allowed to have in the hospital.
Perhaps some parents believe requiring a child to purchase an heirloom firearm symbolically invests its transfer with a sense of responsibility.
Extrapolating a generalized principle from Bloomberg's musing, ought it to be frowned upon for parents to receive financial reimbursement should parents decide to grant titles of family dwellings and automobiles to their own children?
If there is one thing that liberals hate as much (maybe even more) than mere commoners defending themselves is daring to conduct an economic transaction that the government might not be able to seize a portion of.
by Frederick Meekins
Contrary to a remark between Albert Mohler and a caller regarding her grandchildren, there is no reason to lament if the young are less than fanatically eager for Jesus to return right this very second. Isn't it a good thing for the young to look forward to the blessings and joys of this life? Doesn't the Bible say that all those that hate God love death? Maybe if Muslims weren't so worked up into a froth for the next world, there might be a little less heartache in this one now in terms of violent conflict. Frankly, isn't it a little hypocritical for those that have experienced and gotten what they have wanted out of life to expect those that have not yet to be as eager for it to come to its conclusion?
A caller to the Chris Plante radio show said that ones does not have a right to self defense if one provoked an attack. Like nearly all forms of revolutionary socialism, on the surface such a claim sounds reasonable. However, to comprehend what the radicals are really advocating, one must peer behind the curtain. To fanatic Obama Voters and Trayvonites, the fact that you even exist, White and Black conservative, is itself a provocation. Therefore, whatever criminality these frothing ne'erdowells inflict upon you is justified in their eyes. Any response on your part but passive acceptance and gratitude will be deemed as illegtimate.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Do Biblical Prohibitions Against Female Clergy Apply To Other Spheres Of Authority?
The logic behind such a position contends that there is no distinction between what contemporary society views as secular and sacred authority.
Thus, it is immoral for a man to submit to a woman in either cultural sphere.
If we are obligated to be this rigorous in our religious thinking, there are other applications of this principle that you are required to implement if you are insisting that you are only striving for consistency in these matters.
Foremost, to say that one is under such and such pastor or minister is to say that one regularly subjects oneself to their teaching.
A book is nothing more than an extended lecture or sermon committed to print.
Thus, shouldn't those wanting to present for public display as evidence of their piety how enthusiastically they adhere to the admonitions of Scripture refuse to set their eyes upon any text composed by a woman?
The aspiring canonists advocating for the extremeism of their initial hypothesis will no doubt try to wiggle out of this corner by saying at most such an interpretation would only apply to doctrinal expositions or monographs.
But if we are operating from the principle that all authority is sacred authority, then why does one suddenly attempt to hide behind the distinction between secular knowledge and sacred knowledge in the area of epistemology?
Next, if one holds to the position that women should be forbidden from holding elected office because such would violate Biblical prohibitions against women exercising spiritual authority over men, on what grounds does the person advocating such a perspective then work for a corporation that allows for female managers, supervisors, and executives?
For if the political realm is to be viewed as another sphere of ministry, on what grounds does one then say that economics and business are separate and distinct from the spiritual?
And most importantly, isn't the person that is employed in such an organization adamant about female exclusion from public life guilty of possessing the same kind of dead faith they are extremely eager of insinuating and accusing so many other Christians around them of suffering from?
By Frederick Meekins