Tuesday, August 04, 2015
Do Baptist Elites Conduct Big Game Hunts Under The Guise Of Missionary Outreach?
Monday, August 03, 2015
Will Church Hopping Send You To Hell?
Then who is to say that it is not God that prompts individuals to go elsewhere?
As justification for his position condemning the practice of going from church to church, the pastor invoked the passage in Matthew 7:23 where Christ says, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
The pastor insisted that the issue was not that those surrendered to eternal damnation did not believe in Christ as Lord and Savior but rather that these workmen were ministering where they had not been assigned.
The pastor further taught that the individual believer is not cleared to find another church until God tells the PASTOR that it is time for you to leave.
And I guess, when the pastor tells you to drink the funny-smelling Kool Aid that burns as it goes down, you are expected to remain in the church for that as well.
Contrary to this podcast under consideration, if you leave one church to go to another, you shouldn't have to give an elaborate reason why.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Certain Evangelicals Overreact To AD Miniseries
At best, according to White, such is merely the presentation of an historical event even if integral to the Gospel. As justification, White invoked the Apostle Paul whom White alleges did not rehash these events but went on to emphasize Christ crucified and risen as the Savior of the world.
St. Francis is attributed with saying preach the Gospel and if you must use words. Though with the anti-Catholic attitude often elicited in the consideration of this drama, it is doubtful his admonition will be positively considered.
An important question to consider here is what is this pastor really concerned about. At times, it sounds primarily to be about the job security of the professional clergy and their relevance in the context of the missiological encounter.
No balanced person in favor of the series is saying that exposure to the drama is all that is required to drag the soteriological ball into the end zone of salvation.
If God did not intend our faith to be founded on a basis of history, why were we given the Gospels? Perhaps of even greater curiosity would be why bother with vast stretches of the Old Testament at all?
For while many Christians insist that they abide by all of Scripture, they'd probably tell you that while scarfing down pork barbecue with a big mess of crabs.
Pastor White insists that, in terms of outreach, the believer is better off going to one's neighbor and sharing what Christ has done in your life.
That might have been an effective approach in a previous era. However, for better or worse, this is an era where the visual will likely have as much impact on the individual as the conversationally verbal.
Furthermore, I am not particularly all that interested in what Jesus has allegedly done for you per say, especially if there is little chance of distinguishing that from transient indigestion (the old Mormon burning in the bosom) or fluctuating biochemistry.
I for one, if I was an unbeliever, would be more concerned if the objective historical accounts detailing the Crucifixion and Resurrection actually happened and the conclusions drawn by the eyewitnesses and their immediate contemporaries universally binding irrespective of ones temporal circumstances.
In his exposition, Pastor White asserted that dramatic presentation of these events are just so problematic in that the possibility exists for the director, playwrite, or screenwriter to leave things out or to embellish that which ought to be downplayed.
But isn't that also true of sermons and testimonies as well?
What pastor hasn't invoked Scripture in ways to buttress their own opinion or interpretation to appear as if it was handed down at Sinai as part of the stone tablets?
Perhaps an even greater danger are those eagerly plying the techniques of the “Look What Jesus Has Done For Me” School Of Evangelism.
That approach might be able to draw in a number of the hurting.
But sometimes those accounts are so fanciful that a fledgling faith or even one that is longstanding could suffer profound harm if the individual exposed to these stories does not experience the intervention of God in such a tangibly overpowering or life-altering manner.
Though a single sin is sufficient to alienate the individual from God for eternity, not everyone's life was as screwed up as the average drug addict, wife beater, or pornstar.
Granted, those that have not fallen into these temptations should not go around like the proud Pharisee displaying for applause how grateful they are that they are not like other men.
But that said, shouldn't the church also be just as cautious in the other extreme that lavishes increasing rewards and benefits such as book deals and speaking engagements upon the repentant reprobate that can craft the most titillating tale of carnality and debauchery provided Jesus rushes in at the last second to rescue to rescue the teller from utter damnation?
With the brand of Christianity most openly opposed to the AD Miniseries, there is no winning. Such critics seem to enjoy playing an unending game of vocational gotcha in condemnation of those not part of the ministerial in crowd.
For example, it is claimed rightfully so that all talents should be utilized in honor of the Lord and for the furtherance of His kingdom in pursuit of the lost.
However, as soon as a believer or even those inclined to a traditional brand of spirituality attempt to do so through a modality or medium that might be morally acceptable but which might not be suited for a traditional church service, these hypertraditionalists rank among the first to poopoo such artistic efforts.
Pastor Randy White in the broadcast went out of his way to denigrate the accompanying DVD and online studies released in conjunction with the miniseries.
He insisted that the true pastor needs nothing more than his Bible, and not the Internet, to prepare a sufficient sermon addressing these kinds of matters.
Interestingly, was it not the Internet that Pastor White turned to to warn those beyond the boundaries of his own congregation of the allure of seductive entertainments?
In criticism of the AD miniseries, often those the most rigorously opposed have seemed to have more to say about those either producing or promoting the drama than about the actual contents of the narrative.
For example, of particular concern is not only the Roman Catholicism of Roma Downey but that the particular strand that she is an adherent of borders upon the New Age in terms of its beliefs and practice.
But ought the primary concern to be instead the extent to which these might have infiltrated the dramatic presentation?
Pastor White and the Standing For The Truth hosts were noticeably critical of reputable Evangelicals that decided to promote or endorse the miniseries.
Particular ire was directed at pastor and Christian broadcaster David Jeremiah.
White insisted that any good David Jeremiah might have accomplished is undermined and perhaps even nullified by the questionable alliances and affiliations promoting this production.
Does this also apply to Pastor White in terms of his questionable affiliations as well?
At his website, Pastor White admits to being a Southern Baptist though a disgruntled one.
Does he not trust God enough to come out of and to be ye separate if that is the advice he seems to bestow upon everybody else?
Admittedly, the AD miniseries was far from perfect.
However, in this day where the culture is declining more and more to resemble the era in which this disputed narrative takes place, one would think certain Evangelicals would be a bit more pleased that there are a few in the entertainment industry at least willing to consider the only cure for this spreading decadence even if they do not agree to the details around the edges.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, July 27, 2015
Is Huckabee Any More Egotistical Than Pastors Complaining About His Ego?
That raises a number of observations.
I'm not much of a Huckabee fan.
I possess an aversion to those that insist that the government should track the weight of your children in the name of national security when they themselves possess progeny pushing the 300 pound mark.
However, according to these pastors, are we to take away the impression that whether or not we attempt something should be determined by standards of earthly success?
Secondly, which of the candidates isn't running for some degree of recognition?
What in life isn't done in pursuit of that if only from one other person or even from God Almighty?
When you come down to it, one of the primary reasons people reproduce is so that their name will continue on after they are dead.
Name recognition, in part, is why many get involved in ministry.
Sure, there is the desire to spread the Gospel.
But doesn't even this church posting the comments in question have its name attached as well as those of the participating pastors?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 24, 2015
Will Crypto-Progressives Undermine Fundamentalism's Patriotic Nature?
Previously, the leadership of this congregation in the heart of Dixie came out firmly against the Confederate Flag.
However, this headlong march into a globalist progressivism did not stop there.
For the pastor, who doesn't seem to mind shoving mention of his distinguished military career in your face when he thinks the invocation of such should earn him some due deference, mentioned that he was not too keen on Christians swearing allegiance to the American flag either.
In his tirade, the minister propagated the impression that Old Glory does not necessarily represent the higher values upon which the nation rests but rather whatever regime might be holding power at any given moment.
But even Christians now trying to get their priorities in order while retaining a place of honor for the American flag but in subordination to the Christian flag are not immune from this particular church's derision and contempt.
In the analysis of a church that flies the Christian flag in this manner, it was snorted that doing so might cause offense and that God does not need a flag.
Should an activist Jew travel by Pastor Sean Harris' church and not want to be bothered by the sight of a steeple, should his congregation rush to take that symbol down as well to eagerly comply with the tyranny closing in around them?
After all, God doesn't require a steeple either.
There is nothing in Scripture about churches holding expansive properties rivaling some shopping centers or even small amusement parks in size.
God is perfectly fine with small bands meeting in tiny churches or even catacombs.
Does that mean Pastor Harris and his dutiful sidekicks are going to gleefully applaud the seizure of their building for the establishment of an atheist museum as occurred in the case of the former Soviet Union or perhaps the erection of a gay pride center which might be more fitting in light of the particular variety of carnality and licentious unbelief epidemic to this particular moment in history?
One of the assistant pastors confessed that he was not comfortable pledging to a Christian flag either.
Then shouldn't we be leery of making all sorts of church membership vows and pledges when these are mentioned no where in the pages of Scripture?
Perhaps one of the most interesting things about a church that is taking such a public stance against the American flag is that on its SermonAudio profile page there is a picture of that church building where there isn't simply a single tasteful flagpole with the national ensign flying in front of the church but rather at least four or five American flags.
It was argued in the exposition in condemnation of flags that a sanctuary should be laid out and adorned in such a fashion that a Christian from a foreign land (Palestine was given as an example) would not be offended by any potential Americana such as the flag.
Christian or not, if a Palestinian comes into an American church and gets jacked out of shape at explicitly American paraphernalia, he can slink back to his Third World terrorist-sympathizer excrement pile.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Hardline Homeschoolers Hint Jurassic World Lures Children Into Idolatry
And the problem is?
Most people are awake between 12 and 18 hours per day.
Does all of that time need to be focused on direct Bible study or related religious exercises?
This is an especially valid question if they are going to get a big dose of church the next day anyway?
It was suggested in this Christian podcast that, if children talk more about Jurassic World than the “things of God”, this is possibly a symptom that they might be slipping into idolatry.
But could it also be that God designed children to be more fascinated by dinosaurs than potluck suppers or lengthy meditative expositions where they are ordered to sit with heads bowed and eyes closed pretending to have a conversation where honestly the deity does not respond directly?
Call me a heathen, but a T-rex battling it out with a velociraptor is just more exciting than a lengthy exposition on someone's mechanic's accountant's taxidermist's bunion removal.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Oration Proves The Extent To Which Michelle Obama Undermines American Liberty
Yet, in the past, a number of commencement addresses have provided a bit of an historical snapshot into the perspectives of the foremost leaders and thinkers of the respective time. Perhaps the most prominent that comes to mind is none other than Winston Churchill's describing the advancement of the Soviet bloc across Europe as an Iron Curtain.
Likewise, though for considerably less auspicious reasons, First Lady Michelle Obama's Oberlin College commencement oration provides considerable insight into our own political era. The speech also serves as evidence that the First Lady is hardly the first rate intellect propagandists have made her out to be.
The Gettysburg Address begins, “Four score and seven years ago.” The Declaration of Independence begins, “We hold these truths to be self evident.”
Not every piece of public rhetoric is going to stir the soul with such inspiration. But with the opening of “Hi! How are you all doing?”, it is obvious that the First Lady didn't even bother to try.
It's not like there is probably all that much going on in Michelle Obama's brain to begin with. For despite all of the wisdom that a graduation speaker of her status can attempt to impart to the assembled before her, she launches into the same manner of tirade she and her consort Barack have invoked throughout the course of his presidency to manipulate those mesmerized by them into surrendering whatever it is that the couple desires.
For nearly the first thing out of her mouth beyond that idiotic greeting that reminds one more of the quack doctor Nick Riviera on the Simpsons rather than a leader worthy of any kind of admiration was in essence the First Couple's usual pronouncement of “Look at me. I'm Black. And you are racist if you don't comply with our demands no matter how ridiculous or outlandish they might be.”
Her proclamation was not articulated that way exactly. However, that categorization was an accurate summary of what did follow.
The First Lady pointed out that Oberlin was the first college in America to view Blacks and women as legitimate students. However, seldom are the Obama's interested in history that does not either further their agenda or manipulate spineless Whites into compliance.
For in her commencement oration, the First Lady did not reference this historic fact for the purposes of reminding what the individual is capable of through the processes of scholastic advancement and personal improvement. Rather, Michelle Obama proceeded to harp upon the necessity of compliance with the collective and agitation on the part of the herd mentality.
The First Lady warned, “And the truth is, graduates, after four years of thoughtful, respectful discussion and debate here at Oberlin...you might find yourself a little dismayed by the clamor outside of these walls --- the name calling, the negative ads, the folks yelling at each other on TV. After being surrounded by people who are so dedicated to serving others and making the world a better place, you might feel a little discouraged by the polarization and gridlock that too often characterize our politics and civic life.”
Maybe so. But if the world outside the campus is discordant and filled with conflict, those embracing the worldview and policies of the First Lady are just as guilty (if not even more so) for making it that way.
One particular question raised by those turning a critical mind to Michelle Obama's diatribe is on what grounds are things obligated to be as the First Lady prefers them?
In the portion of the speech just quoted, Frau Obama rhetorically crafts the impression that those not relenting to the social vision of leftwing academics somehow do not want to serve others or make the world a better place. This is especially relevant when the assembled she is addressing rank among the foremost in insisting that absolute standards do not exist or are determined by the prevailing demagogue of the moment.
Frau Obama continued, “...you don't get to be...cautious or cynical.” The question must be asked, “And what if we are?”
For what the First Lady is saying when she invokes the words “cautious” and “cynical” is that you are not to question the social engineering directives when these are handed down by elites. Your's is not to reason why; your's is but to do or die.
To the likes of Obama and related totalitarians, the ideal is best visualized in a scene from the movie “Conan The Barbarian”.
In the particular sequence, Thulsa Doom (played by James Earl Jones) signals to one of his cult followers to come to him immediately. The deluded acolyte doesn't descend the winding staircase. Instead, without hesitation, the doomed soul voluntarily plunges to his death gleefully to satisfy the whim of his master and false god.
Frau Obama reflected, “Are you planning to rally for marriage equality on the steps of the Supreme Court? I certainly hope so.” She continued, “Just think about the folks who are winning those battles...to ensure that everyone in this country can marry the person they love. Think about how just 10 years ago, gay marriage was legal in just one state...and today it is legal...”
And wasn't her husband at the time numbered among those that counseled against the recognition of such illicit unions? If so, shouldn't he be removed from office in the same manner as the Mozilla executive that did nothing more subversive than contribute to a referendum initiative that opposed gay marriage before the matter became part of the settled orthodoxy few possess the courage to question for fear of what will happen to their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor?
What is it, then, that makes these positions right or wrong? Is it the whims of the mob?
If so, those opposing the capriciousness of the First Lady are well within their rights to be as cynical and cautious as they want to be. For there exists no basis of rationality from which the First Lady can legitimately launch her criticisms and assaults.
Are these principles grounded in some kind of basis that will outlast the arbitrary tyranny unfolding around us (gentler as it might be at the moment but which Friedrich Hayek warned would grow increasingly violent as the policies imposed would grow increasingly at odds with human nature)? If so, those that the First Lady and her devotees would rather intimidate into silence are obligated in the name of higher truth to avail themselves of every moral means to defend such eternal verities.
In the Obamaist perspective, the individual exists as little more than grist for the elites to grind down as they see fit. The First Lady fondly recalled, “Think about those elections in 2008 and 2012 when idealistic young people ... worked for hours for little money and less sleep ... Think about the millions of folks who got out to vote on Election Day, waiting in the cold and rain in lines that stretched for hours, refusing to leave until they made their voices heard.”
And for what? Did the First Lady endure similar suffering and deprivation?
If anything, she made out like a bandit. During the couple's occupation of the White House, they have taken multiple high-priced vacations, flown in pizza chefs from Chicago, and procured evening gowns costing thousands upon thousands of dollars.
Under the rule of the Obamas, most Americans (especially those that did not vote for Barack to begin with) have had the enjoyment of their own petty lives significantly curtailed. For whereas in the age prior to skyrocketing fuel and food costs one might have gone to a place like Walmart quite regularly, now it seems one might get to such an establishment about four times per year.
Towards the conclusion of her oration, Frau Obama declared, “And I want to be clear: Every ordinance, every ballot measure, every law on the books in this country --- that is your concern.”
That sounds noble and inspirational upon an initial hearing. For example, if some corrupt backwoods sheriff deprives someone of a different color of their constitutional protections elaborated upon in the Bill Of Rights, it ought to bother you whether you are from New York City or the cotton fields of Georgia.
But just how deeply do you want people from other parts of the country probing into the nuts and bolts mechanics of your local government or even way of life?
For example, those in more liberal areas such as New York City or San Francisco might assume that it is their business what children in Appalachia are taught regarding evolution and creation science. But conversely, should Rednecks have an appreciable say as to whether or not someone should be allowed to walk down the streets of such urban centers brandishing so-called “assault weapons” without the police being allowed to say one thing whatsoever to such individuals?
Towards the conclusion of her oration, Michelle Obama admonished, “Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.” Ironically, it is through compliance with that very axiom that true patriots must continue to expose this First Couple for what they are as their regime draws to a close and why Americans must remain vigilant as Barack and Michelle will no doubt continue to undermine our freedoms from the shadows of private life once they leave office.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Trump's Comments No More Distasteful Than Other Remarks Undermining America
But that apology should only be offered should McCain also apologize in part for snide remarks he has made regarding grassroots conservatives over the years but more importantly for undermining border security.
Distasteful as they were, not a single person will be physically harmed as a result of Trump's callous quip.
Thousands have no doubt been injured and their lives ruined as profoundly as a prison of war as a result of McCain's failure to protect the border.
It is suggested that Donald Trump's unfortunate remarks regarding John McCain should disqualify the billionaire from the presidency.
Then why haven't Barack Obama's remarks that have been just as offensive and perhaps an even more profound threat to America's constitutional foundations disqualify him from occupying the Oval Office?
Perhaps these should be reviewed once again.
As a candidate, Barack Obama denigrated rural Pennsylvanians for bitterly clinging to their guns and their God.
Would he have said something similar regarding Muslims?
As a candidate, Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber how wealth should be seized from those that produced it and redistributed to those that have not really made much of an effort at being productive.
As president, Obama reiterated the collectivist perspective when he chided entrepreneurs, business owners, and any other American that struggles to pull their own weight, “Hey, you didn't build that.”
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, July 20, 2015
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Four Out Of THE FIVE Duped By Papal Environmentalism
The other pundits lambasted fellow talkinghead Greg Gutfeld for excoriating Pope Francis for perpetuating a dangerous anti-capitalist mindset.
The others attempted to persuade Gutfeld that what the Pope really opposed was simply materialism and greed.
In the next segment, these very same media elites who already possess more than the Pope would allow under his regime of global asceticism and income redistribution bemoaned that the bargains offered during Amazon's twentieth anniversary sale didn't exactly live up to the hype as they had hoped.
When Gutfeld pointed out that Amazon wouldn't even be available if innovation was restricted to levels suggested by Pope Francis, he was ordered to give it a break and that he was in danger of hellfire for simply countering the Pope in an area outside of that position's narrow area of expertise.
However, the only thing that puts you in danger of hellfire is if you believe that something other than calling upon name of the Lord Jesus Christ can possibly keep you from there.
By Frederick Meekins