Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
Worldview Clashes In Super Bowl Commercials As Riveting As The Actual Game
A variety of assumptions worthy of additional comment were propagated for public dissemination through a number of Super Bowl commercials.
In one anti-bullying spot, a social engineer instructs the one to be mentally reconditioned to run or fight like a girl.
Upon compliance, the unenlightened male is subjected to Pavlovian denunciation (akin to what one would receive in a prisoner of war camp) over how he has insulted his sister.
Rather than an instructive analysis of preconceived notions, the lesson to be learned from the public service announcement is that, irrespective of whether you comply with or ignore orders issued by a women, you are going to be reamed a new one anyway.
For if the ambushed lad had not been told to run like a girl, he would have not likely perpetrated the offending action.
If producers of this broadcast spot are so outraged about thought crimes regarding gender, it would be interesting to hear their perspective regarding the commercial featuring perennial pottymouth Sarah Silverman.
In that one, she says after delivering a baby to the parents, “Sorry, it's a boy.”
Would such blatant denigration of the female gender be permitted in a similar commercial?
Lastly, what about the Scientology advertisement?
In 2011, Fox rejected a Super Bowl commercial that broadcast the message, “John 3:16, what's that mean?” on the grounds that the message contained too much religious doctrine.
Of course, that is unlike the moral-free content of the constant litany of erectile dysfunction commercials where the term “partner” but never “spouse” is constantly verbalized.
It is certainly instructive that programming executives at NBC had no problem, however, with a commercial for Scientology, which is a cult that believes that human beings are reincarnated space aliens and whose sexfiend founder tried to live aboard a cruise ship in order to elude capture for his assorted crimes.
It is easy to assume that the commercials are a momentary distraction allowing the viewer time for a quick trip to the bathroom or to grab another handful of chips.
However, in those brief 30 second spots, there is a contest underway for minds and at times even souls that is as pitched as any struggle on the gridiron
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, February 12, 2015
In the book “Stop Dating The Church”, Josh Harris popularized the analogy that church membership is akin to marriage. As such, when things become difficult, according to Harris, one should not set out in search of greener pastures but instead endure through the misery. So does his resignation as pastor at the scandal-ridden Covenant Life Church constitute a form of abandonment akin to divorce? In most doctrinally conservative churches, the divorced cannot usually remarry without a profound curtailment of their ecclesiastical privileges and opportunities. So by the logic of his own analogy, should Josh Harris be forever denied another ministry position?
On an episode of “Standing Up For The Truth with Mike Lemay”, it was claimed that experiments in Christian communal living in the 1960's and 1970's fizzled out because the participants became materialistic and wanted their own possessions. But is that really sinfully materialistic or merely the way that God has wired human beings to maximize individual well being? The sharing of resources mentioned in Acts 2 is more a description of a specific historic incident. It is not elaborated as categorically imperative doctrine.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
A number of Christians have suggested that, if the state sanctions gay marriage, it might no longer be appropriate for believers to acquire a marriage license. Though the state sanctioning gay marriage undermines the institution, how would that impact the quality of your own relationship if you as a heterosexual acquire a license? You are in no way forbidden from pursuing a partner of the opposite sex. If a state allows unmarried couples to own the same piece of property, does that mean a devout Christian couple should not purchase a house or take out a mortgage?
Regarding Christian Reconstructionists opposed to Fifty Shades Of Gray. Are they so much opposed to a firm hand of discipline or that someone might actually enjoy it? Isn't there more wrong with that film than a blind fold and a pair of handcuffs as one homeschool podcaster seemed to go on and one about?
A number across the political spectrum are outraged that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore would attempt to block the establishment of gay marriage in that state. You know, the law is the law. So in the future, should the inheritor of his judicial mantle step aside as easily as they suggest when Jews are once again onto box cars and octogenarians assert the right to 12 year old child brides? Given the advancement of Islam across the globe, don't kid yourself about the aforementioned scenario being beyond the realm of possibility.
Conspiracy Theorists Ponder Is The Greek Prime Minister Possibly The Anti-Christ
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued an order forbidding the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples. The proponents of solemnized deviancy accused Roy Moore of grandstanding. But unlike that of the Ferguson insurgents, at least this jurist's political theatrics don't result in the widespread destruction of property.
Monday, February 09, 2015
The following phrase was used in a podcast posted by a prominent Evangelical seminary: “Held accountable in community.” What that means is that you might not have violated anything concrete from the pages of Scripture. Rather, it means you just violated the nebulous sensibilities of the group. What can they do to you if you don't show up? If no other church will take you because of a sentence imposed by another ecclesiastical assembly, what is to prevent the dispossessed from forming a church of their own? The churches being openly defied can't very well complain about it when nearly the same thing occurred in their own backgrounds and origin accounts.
It was entertaining to see Grand Moff Tarkin on an episode of the Star Wars Rebels animated series. However, it was a bit of a let down when the episode opened with the shuttle dispatched from the battle cruiser with the Imperial March playing (known popularly as "The Darth Vader Theme") without Darth Vader emerging before the assembled stormtroopers.
Radical Homeschooler Invokes Abuse Statistics To Justify Denying Women Education
Saturday, February 07, 2015
Did Chuck Swindol Overreact To Elijah's Declaration Of Despair?
A Facebook theologian has commented in agreement with Christian broadcaster Chuck Swindoll that we should never pray for God to take a loved one home to eternity.
It is contended doing so can apparently derail His sovereignty.
Apparently, if we believe that He is sovereign, we should know that He is fully capable of taking us home when He believes that the time has approached.
Isn't that formulation itself an affront to God's sovereignty?
For if God is sovereign in an absolutist sense and the religious thinker not precise in their statements worthy of considerable condemnation as the ultra-Reformed insist, doesn't God KNOW rather than BELIEVE?
In such a theology as being advocated by this Facebook theologian, prayer is not about bringing our requests and concerns to God but rather about formulating statements that we think will make us appear exceedingly pious before certain audiences.
Just how far are we to take the presupposition embodied by this religious postulation under consideration?
If it is wrong to pray for God to mercifully end a life that is suffering, is it just as wrong to pray that God restore life and vitality to a life that He might prefer to draw to a conclusion in this world?
And given that this criticism was posted by someone that is quite vocal in expressing their support of a predestinarian understanding of soteriology so thoroughgoing as to deny any place for human choice and liberty, it must be asked is it a sin to pray for the salvation of a family member that God would rather see slip into Hellfire and damnation?
As justification for this position, the account of Elijah is referenced.
In I Kings 19, while on the run from Ahab and Jezebel, Elijah succumbs to a moment of despair where he declares to the Lord, in verse 4, “I have had enough, Lord. Take my life. I am no better than my ancestors.”
From the Lord's response, apparently unlike Chuck Swindol, the Lord did not find what Elijah asked that much of an outrage.
Instead of chastising Elijah for his despondency, on two occasions the prophet was given a meal so that he might have strength for the journey that was ahead.
Thus, about the only conclusion that can be drawn from Elijah's lamentation that God end his life is that God does not always answer our prayers the way that we would like.
And if He does not, we might find Him lending us assistance in ways that we did not initially expect.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, February 06, 2015
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Do The Truly Redeemed Retain Health Insurance?
Furthermore, it is pointed out, if you retain traditional insurance, you are sending your money to a large corporation rather than assisting fellow believers.
So long as I get the services I contracted for in a satisfactory manner, what do I care if a corporation is large?
The broadcasters claimed that insurance allows for control over people's lives.
Instead, believers would be better off if oversight over medical affairs were transferred to the church.
But what is to prevent the church from exercising increased control over people's lives or from allocating access to healthcare in a preferential manner?
For example, would ecclesiastical medicine be dispersed to the truly ill or to the missionary couple with the saddest sob story with so many children that you can't help bring to mind the old nursery rhyme about the old woman that lived in the shoe?
During the 1990’s, Christian broadcasters would dedicate entire episodes of their programs shilling for a telecommunications provider with the angle that if you remained with these companies you where as complicit with these companies in the part they played in furthering the agendas of pornography and homosexuality.
Despite such grandiose moralizing, the thing was that this service was a pain in the backside to use when you needed it the most.
Do you really want the same thing to happen to you in terms of securing essential medical services?
by Frederick Meekins
So why not a wear red day for heart disease in ALL PEOPLE irrespective of gender? Men that die from it somehow less dead? Both of my mother’s parents died from heart ailments. I don’t remember going to the cemetery and getting to talk some to grandpa despite him being dead but not grandma. If men were as callous as these women that only care about assorted health concerns unless specifically targeted towards women, you’d never hear the end of it.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
Too Spiritual By Half?
The Lutheran seminarian insisted that this symbolically represented the precedence of the spirit over the human tendency to emphasize the body.
The expositor lamented that such a characteristic was the result of the sin nature.
But how is it our fault that the aspect of reality that is the fist to overwhelm our perception on an instinctive level is the physical?
We did not ask to exist as embodied intelligences.
That was part of our original design even in the sinless state.
Unless the demon was cast out first of the person whose body Christ healed and He then had them wait in contemplation for a time before He healed their biological infirmity, isn't this reading too much into the passage?
If one wants to be that attentive to the text, the first miracle in the chapter is actually the bodily healing on the Sabbath of the man with the withered hand.
And what about taking the Four Gospels as a comprehensive totality?
If so, isn't the turning of water into wine at the wedding feast actually thought to be Christ's first miracle?
So do we want to start reading meaning into these as well other than what we are told in the text?
The case could be made that, in terms of a miracle, turning water into wine would appeal more to man's extraneous physical desires than a desire to avoid overwhelming pain and disability.
You make a choice for wine; by design you feel a compulsion to seek the alleviation of pain.
Furthermore, are Lutherans really sure they want to open the door of reading profounder spiritual meaning into the miracles beyond the miracles themselves?
John 2:3 reads, “And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said unto him, They have no wine.”
Since Christ ultimately relented to her request, why shouldn't we build detailed Christological speculations like one particular denomination does about how Christ's decisions are especially swayed by her contemplative petitions if we are going to read profound truths into something as commonplace as the order in which Christ performed these miracles?
If the definition of God's omniscience is that the Deity knows everything, wouldn't that also include alternative temporal potentialities?
Therefore, isn't it just as valid to conclude that, if Jesus went first to heal Peter's mother-in-law, Christ night not have gotten around to this particular demoniac before this pitied soul's life ended in some convulsive spasm?
Among Bible scholars and theologians, the Gospel of Mark is noted as a summarative action oriented narrative.
Why would there need to be some esoteric reason as to the order in which the events described transpired other than that this was the order in which events “organically” unfolded around Jesus?
By Frederick Meekins
The Obama Administration has issued a report hoping to spark a national conversation regarding future transportation needs. That translates as the American people are to be mentally reconditioned to accept restrictions on individual travel and daily movement analogous to the limitations being implemented in the name of healthcare reform.
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
Monday, February 02, 2015
Christian Publisher Targets Children With Leftist Indoctrination
According to the synopsis, Edgar doesn't like company but notices he is followed by a worm. So he tries to get away from the invertebrate.
The summary reads, “Edgar asks for the other animals on the farm to help him, but eventually he realizes he might have been part of the problem all along.”
One cannot comment definitively without having read the story.
However, the question can be raised why does a children's book need to paint those that might prefer to be alone to as if they are defective or some kind of villain?
Will there be a sequel to the story teaching the worm about the impropriety of pushing his affections upon those that don't want them?
Perhaps the text could be titled “Wiggly Worm & The Restraining Order Process Server”.
Some might think that I am reading too much into a children's book.
Eerrdman's has published another storybook by the very same author titled “The Chicken's Build A Wall”.
That book is advertised with the following copy: “At the farm, the chickens are building a wall, convinced that the hedgehog that wandered in must be trouble. But eventually they discover that he might not be as dangerous as they thought.”
Only the most obtuse liberal (of the variety those publishing this propaganda hope children will be indoctrinated into becoming) will refuse to acknowledge the kinds of agendas such a narrative is promoting.
Firstly, just because the first hedgehog is harmless, isn't it just as much an act of unconscionable prejudice to assume that the next hedgehog is just as affable?
Secondly, if the barnyard or however else you want to categorize their enclosure belongs to the chickens, on what grounds are the chickens obligated to allow the hedgehogs to remain there?
And if the flock does allow the one hedgehog to remain there, are the chickens obligated to allow his entire hovel to take up residence in the chicken coop?
Furthermore, if the hedgehog decides to move into the chicken coop, shouldn't the hedgehog learn to cluck like a chicken or will the chickens be required to grunt like a hedgehog?
It must also be taken into consideration how many hedgehogs can be allowed to move onto the farm before the farm begins to more resemble a hedgehog burrow rather than the original barnyard.
And perhaps most importantly, since it seems that the perimeter can be breached by an animal as innocuous (we are assured) as a hedgehog, shouldn't that serve as a warning for those chickens to get that wall erected before creatures of far more nefarious intent such as foxes, wolves, and weasels make their way into the chicken coop?
At that time, will these carnivores form lobbies and activist networks insisting that, since the hedgehog was allowed to take up residence without protest, that they too be allowed to remain even though their intention is to prey upon the chickens and destroy the avian way of life since these species have been in conflict with one another for nearly two millennia?
To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a story can be just a story.
However, when an author or publisher is explicit in conveying didactic propaganda through the medium of a children's narrative, the discerning should not slink back in fear.
It is because such impressionable young minds are potentially on the line that such concerns must be raised with renewed vigor.
By Frederick Meekins