Floundering comedian Stephen Colbert compared Donald Trump to the Ku Klux Klan.
But technically, isn't it the American political left that has more in common with the terrorizing nightriders of yore?
For example, like the Klan, political leftists (not Donald Trump) are
the ones threatening violence and perpetrating acts of such when opinion
is vocalized with which these hoodlums disagree.
Anyone insisting otherwise need only be reminded of the vandalizing
rampages that have erupted in a number of American cities over the
course of the past year or so.
Furthermore, in an age that claims to value tolerance and diversity, how
is it less of an outrage for victims of the Knockout Game to be
rendered unconscious for simply being White in an overwhelming
percentage of these assaults than it was for outrageous acts of violence
to be perpetrated upon innocent victims in an era that might not have
taken such infringements of basic human dignities as seriously as it
should have?
Like the Klan, Colbert and his political allies are the ones demanding
that duly established law be suspended for the purposes of providing a
preferred demographic with an advantage over another.
All that Donald Trump is pretty much calling for is an enforcement of U.S. immigration law as it is already on the books?
What can be more American that equal treatment under the law?
For if Kim Davis can be imprisoned because of the imperative of elected
officials upholding even those laws that they do not believe in, why
isn't a similar punishment imposed upon those as willfully neglecting
this other area of law and public policy?
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 21, 2015
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Theoanthrocide: The Death Of God & Man
Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the
righteous do?” Without a doubt, the twentieth century ranks among the
deadliest in all of human history and it seems the twenty-first will
likely continue this appalling legacy. This era will also be remembered
as a period of intense philosophical upheaval where the pillars of
culture and belief were shaken and in many cases even shattered. A
number of sophisticated liberals will contend that one cannot establish a
link between these sociological developments because innocents have
been slain in societies assenting to Judeo-Christian assumptions and not
every unbeliever has been an ax-wielding serial killer. Yet it cannot
be denied that in nations where the God of the Bible comes to play a
role of decreasing significance, the value placed upon human life soon
follows such a downhill plunge.
Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.
Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.
The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.
In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.
Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”
It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.
Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.
As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.
Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.
Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.
As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.
Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”
Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?
With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.
To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .
While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.
In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.
Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.
By Frederick Meekins
Exodus 20:3-4 reads, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...” The Lord continues in verses 5 and 6, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: For I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto their children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto the thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Thus from the outset, evidence exists that consequences flow directly from one's attitudinal disposition towards the Almighty.
Usually, these consequences are thought of in terms of one's eternal destination. However, the warning that the iniquities of the father will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations dispels the notion of consequences being solely immediate. Rather, it indicates that ramification are possible within a wider social context. It therefore becomes evident that acknowledgment of and submission to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob plays a fundamental role in ordering the individual's cultural and relational perspectives.
The requirement to yield to the God of the Bible is not intended to shore up the fragile esteem of a deity lacking in self-confidence. Rather, the foremost among the Commandments serves as a protective boundary designed to shield sinful individuals from falling prey to their own delusions as well as those of others.
In “The Universe Next Door”, James Sire lists a number of assumptions regarding the nature of God embraced by Christian theism. These include the following: God is omniscient, God is sovereign, God is good, and God created the universe and everything in it out of nothing other than through the power of His own Word (23-26). These assumptions are replete with ramifications for humanity's ethical situation. For if God is the benevolent, all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of the universe, it naturally follows that the plans and intentions established by His guidelines for man are therefore the best possible course of action. Obedience to the First Commandment bring the individual into compliance with the divinely ordained moral order and allows the individual to prosper the most from it --- if not in this life, surely in the next. Romans 12:2 says, “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” John 8:32 adds, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Rather than stifling mankind, the First Commandment allows for a liberation found in no other system of belief or religious thought.
Sadly though, the present age since the Fall in the Garden of Eden has been marred by sin and its consequences. Instead of complying with the First Commandment and accepting God's free gift of salvation found through belief in the work of Christ, man has consistently preferred to go it alone in a state of rebellion. Romans 1:21-23 says, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God....; but they became futile in their speculations. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of a corruptible man and of birds and animals and crawling creatures (NASB).”
It was not enough for man to bid God adieu and be on his way. Man's religious yearnings ran so deep that something had to fill the vacancy left by an evicted God. Throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty-first century, man has grown increasingly less-flustered about blatantly occupying without having to hide behind golden calves or Olympians sculpted from marble the throne once reserved for God Almighty alone.
Even though belief systems purporting to be theistic but opposing a sound Biblical conception of God present their own dangers, for the purposes of this brief analysis the most stunning ethical contrast is provided by none other than secular humanism. According to Tim LaHaye in “Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth In The New Millennium”, secular humanism holds to the following principles: God does not exist, man is all that does exist, and everything we see and experience in the world today arose through a process of evolution set in motion by the spontaneous generation of matter devoid of any divine creative impulse or overseeing guidance (185). As such, man finds himself alone in the universe, having to rely solely on his own finite intellect for survival and understanding. This state of existential self-sufficiency extends to the arena of ethics as well.
As with its theistic counterpart, the nature of humanism's system of ethics indelibly flows from its object of ultimate adoration. Thomas Oden in “Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia” classifies the ethical motifs of modernity --- to which secular humanism serves as a backbone --- as autonomous individualism, narcissistic naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Translating this into English, in the humanist system of ethics, values are ultimately determined by the individual in response to external stimuli and internal biochemical reactions without reference to any transcendent moral standard. As Francis Schaeffer notes in “A Christian Manifesto”, “From the material, energy, chance concept of final reality, final reality... must be silent as to values, principles, or any basis of law. There is no way to ascertain 'the ought' from 'the is” (48).” While humanist ethics might prove workable but spiritually unsatisfying in a world of one, problems arise when multiple individuals are required to engage in a high degree of social interaction.
Despite being based on faulty assumptions in violation of the First Commandment, many humanistic individuals, regimes, societies, and cultures do not necessarily set out to journey down the path of corruption and libertinism. Before his death, renowned entertainer and signatory to “Humanist Manifesto 2000” Steve Allen served as spokesman for the Parents' Television Council of the conservative Media Research Center in that watchdog organization's campaign to cleanup America's polluted broadcast airwaves. However, John Frame argues in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God” that the existence of objective morality is a theistic assumption with the ultimate choice being between God and nothingness (102). And since Humanism views life as little more than a random accident, there is little reason to respect it as a treasured and unique phenomena.
Casual observers might find it perplexing that a system of thought so focused upon the human organism ends up being so dangerous to and destructive of human life. Yet such is clearly the case when examined through the light of history and current events. The most outright examples of Humanism on the rampage against individual human life are to found in those regimes and societies that at one time or the other embraced totalitarian ideologies such as Communism or Fascism.
Of such sociopolitical theories, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in “Leftism: From De Sade & Marx To Hitler & Marcuse”, says regarding the viewpoints of those figures regarding the value of the individual human life, “The individual is subject to the will of the majority...He is a mere number in the 'democratic process', who can be added or subtracted...The individual is nothing --- the 'People' everything...The individual is a mere fragment of the collective masses (426).” In the system of humanism then, the individual is not the ultimate source of value per say as is the species taken as a whole. And this is where much of the trouble comes in at.
As discussed elsewhere in this paper, the human heart is constructed in such a manner as to require some focus of ultimate loyalty. For the totalitarian, such centrality of purpose is found in the state or ruling party. Since these finite political entities do not hold absolute sovereignty unlike God, these regimes basing their foundations on nothing but pure egoism cannot countenance a rival voice providing an alternative vision or critiquing the one preferred by the prevailing elite. This is because such an elite cannot guarantee the set of ultimate outcomes it desires and still grant the same degree of individual determination as God to those over whom they seem to exercise complete control. And since it must be remembered that the humanist version of the Golden Rile declares that those who have the gold make the rules, those overseeing these sociopolitical environments are able to tinker with the parameters of acceptability within their respective spheres to justify the elimination of the inconvenient as epitomized under the rule of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
The threat to life in nations purporting to value democracy and individual human rights may be more subtle that that found under totalitarianism, but the seductiveness of such is often spread across a far wider base. For whereas tyrants possess the power to eliminate their victims through the gulags and concentration camps shocking to most Americans, polite humanists discreetly discard those they deem an inconvenience through the sanitary privacy provided by a clinic while celebrating the deed as the epitome of self-actualization under the banner of choice. The hideous reality finds its most prominent expression in the issue of abortion where the violation of the First Commandment and the transgression of the Sixth come together in the amalgamation of a single act. Even though the numbers may be diminished in the sense that the tyrant slays untold millions and the wayward parents seeking an abortion instead bear responsibility of snuffing out one, the process leading to each of these outcomes share considerable similarity.
Analyzed from a philosophical perspective, abortion is quite often the result of assuming an ethical authority to which no human ought to be privy. The decision to abort is often the culmination of the principles discussed previously as these concepts move downward from the academic domain of the elites and into the lives of average citizens. The individual seeking the abortion --- whether they realize it consciously or not amidst their struggle and trying circumstances --- begins by assuming that they (not a deity transcendent to the passions of the moment) are the supreme arbiter of right and wrong.
And if no eternally objective standard exists outside of the circumstances of the human organism, one of the first things to go is truth, in this case represented in the form of scientifically accurate information and propositional axioms conforming to the facts as they actually exist. For example, in “Pro-life Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments”, Randy Alcorn confronts some of the common justifications raised in defense of this homicidal procedure. Perhaps the best argument illustrating this point is as follows: “The unborn is not a person with meaningful life. It's only inches in size, and can't even think; it's less advanced than an animal (Alcorn, 56).”
Objective scientific fact teaches that the fertilized egg constitutes a genetically distinct individual whose DNA will be no more complete at the age of twenty than at the moment of conception. And the criteria of “meaningfulness” used to judge the value of human life ought to send chills down the spine of every thinking individual. Since the unborn child is as human as any other soul dwelling upon the earth, what is to stop this qualification from being invoked as an excuse to sweep aside others deemed inconvenient such as the chronically ill, the emotionally depressed, or even those expressing beliefs countering prevailing cultural norms onto the societal garbage heap. If the ability to think determines the extent of one's humanity, can pro-choicers be said to qualify as people by their own standard?
With advances in technology, abortion simply becomes the tip of the biomedical scalpel. Genetic engineering, with its potential cures and promises to increase the quality of life for untold millions, might be even harder for Christians to grapple with. For unlike abortion, on the surface genetic engineering masquerades as a proposition in compliance with the noblest aspirations in support of human life. Yet like handguns and automobiles, these advanced technologies rather take on the moral intent of those wielding them in any given circumstance. Often those harboring the hubris of humanism hold to intentions far removed from the lofty goals of curing disease or ameliorating physical pain. Instead, those adhering to this particular worldview hope to harness these procedures to make manifest their version of an improved humanity removed from any constraints imposed by an external creator, regardless of the detrimental consequences likely to be wrought upon actual human lives.
To address this issue, one might be surprised to learn few better apologetic resources exist for the Christian than certain types of science fiction since this form of imaginative speculation often allowed a theme to be taken to its conceptual extremes. At the one end of the genetic continuum stands the possibility of a master race not unlike the horror envisioned by Adolf Hitler. This possibility was considered on the program “Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda” in the form of a genetically engineered race know as the Nietzscheans who end up enslaving most other humans and plunging the transgalactic civilization know as the Systems Commonwealth into an age of lawlessness serving as the backdrop against which the ongoing saga unfolded .
While most prevalent themes seem to address the domination of humanity by these wayward laboratory experiments, the possibility exists for the reverse whereby man will fail to respect the Sixth Commandment protections of those conceived and modified in this revolutionary manner, instead looking upon such individuals as property rather than as fellow persons. Steps may in fact be taken to even alter or limit the fundamental human characteristics of such beings. One branch of such research known as transgenics hopes to introduce animal DNA into the human genome. Thomas Horn noted in a WorthyNews.com article titled “Transgenics: Creating Real Monsters” that such efforts in spirit violate the injunctions against bestiality found in Leviticus 18:23 by undermining the integrity between species with the possibility of “ultimately producing animal characteristics within humans.” These ideas have been explored in a number of television programs such as “Dark Angel” where one of the characters was forced to live life with the body of a human and a face evoking the features of a lion.
In a sense, one might look upon the study of Bible prophecy as a discipline where the seemingly unbelievable predictions of science fiction often take form in the concreteness of history. And while admitting that one cannot state with absolute certainty how God might permit the events of eschatology to come about, these horrors may very well transpire through the aide of a form of genetic engineering that recognizes no ethical limits and respects only the lives of those wielding power at the time. The Raelian movement, a religious sect that worships extraterrestrials as the creators of mankind, hopes to resurrect the dead by cloning them. Ultimately, this could provide the means whereby the Anti-Christ could pull off a counterfeit resurrection.
Other passages of prophecy sound like a transgenic nightmare. In particular, the locusts of Revelation 9 come to mind. These creatures are described as like unto horses prepared for battle, with the faces of men, the hair of women, the teeth of lions, and the tails of scorpions. Such creatures may come from the pit of Hell, but they could very well find their way from there through the route of some mad scientist's laboratory. In the vain attempt to reshape humanity in its own image, transhumanists could scar man's precious visage through such a narcissistic undertaking that, unless those days be cut short, no flesh would be saved (Matthew 24:22).
James 2:10 says, “For whosoever shall keep the law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” The Ten Commandments begin to unravel in the lives of those who have not come to repentance in Jesus Christ. Should an individual or society fail to recognize God's rightful place as ruler of the universe, such individuals could unwillingly discover that they might not be around very long to enjoy the universe that God so lovingly created.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Baptist Church Mocks The Pretribulational Rapture
In a SermonAudio podcast, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in
Fayettville, North Carolina mocked those holding to a pretribulational
view of the Rapture.
It was snidely remarked that most American Christians cannot handle the idea of enduring systematic global persecution.
Maybe so.
But unless this church offers survivalist training that includes the use of firearms and improvised explosive devices, aren't these pastors suffering profound cognitive dissonance as to what they profess to be coming?
Even worse, wouldn't they be guilty of an appalling degree of pastoral negligence in failing to prepare those subjected to their spiritual teaching?
Criticisms such as those enunciated by the pastoral staff are also thinly veiled insults that Americans have things too comfortable.
But what about this particular congregation?
For when the armies and operatives of the Anti-Christ besiege the nation, won't this church's sprawling entertainment center with its coffee bar and such make a tempting target?
For this church is so rich that, despite going out of its way to inform the world how much the pastoral staff despises the American flag, there isn't simply a single flagpole on their property but at least five in front of the entrance to this sprawling complex in its SermonAudio profile photo.
By Frederick Meekins
It was snidely remarked that most American Christians cannot handle the idea of enduring systematic global persecution.
Maybe so.
But unless this church offers survivalist training that includes the use of firearms and improvised explosive devices, aren't these pastors suffering profound cognitive dissonance as to what they profess to be coming?
Even worse, wouldn't they be guilty of an appalling degree of pastoral negligence in failing to prepare those subjected to their spiritual teaching?
Criticisms such as those enunciated by the pastoral staff are also thinly veiled insults that Americans have things too comfortable.
But what about this particular congregation?
For when the armies and operatives of the Anti-Christ besiege the nation, won't this church's sprawling entertainment center with its coffee bar and such make a tempting target?
For this church is so rich that, despite going out of its way to inform the world how much the pastoral staff despises the American flag, there isn't simply a single flagpole on their property but at least five in front of the entrance to this sprawling complex in its SermonAudio profile photo.
By Frederick Meekins
Pope Enunciates Obligation To Invite Potential Terrorists Into Churches & Homes
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
Let Hungerstrikers Starve
Ecclesiastical rabblerouser Jim Wallis went on a fast in protest over cuts to social programs in the Congressional budget.
Too bad he didn't starve to death.
That's so harsh, leftists will snap.
It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.
No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.
Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.
However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.
According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?
Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.
In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”
In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.
Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.
By Frederick Meekins
Too bad he didn't starve to death.
That's so harsh, leftists will snap.
It must be pointed out that Wallis pulls these kinds of stunts on his own.
No vile conservatives withheld or denied him access to food.
Interestingly, in light of Wallis' acceptance of abortion and gay unions hidden behind verbal obfuscations to deceive all but the most discerning, apparently fasting might be one of the few Biblical practices that he takes seriously.
However, in his zeal to show how superspiritual he is, it seems Wallis can't even engage in this practice in an appropriately Biblical manner.
According to Matthew 6:16-18, aren't you supposed to comport yourself in such a way that no one else other than God is supposed to know that you are conducting a fast?
Wallis does not seem to so much utilize fasts as a way to draw closer to God but rather as a way to express his profound hatred of the American way of life and the free market system.
In his 3/13/11 Sojomail Newsletter, Wallis lamented, “I have been astounded how food is everywhere in our culture...America is obese because of the assault of food --- an idolatry made of something that was meant to both sustain us and bring community in our social relations.”
In other words, Wallis does not so much want you to make your own free decision to join him in this form of physicalized prayer.
Ideally, what Wallis longs to see is a deprivation imposed from above upon those in the despised “middling orders” unable to rise to the level of mystic contemplation preferred by Wallis and his gnostic elites.
By Frederick Meekins
Are The Answers To Life’s Mysteries To Be Found Up A 1980’s Era Yoda’s Backside?
Click On The Headline
Friday, September 04, 2015
Thursday, September 03, 2015
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Are Evangelicals Too Quick To Embrace Bonhoeffer As One Of Their Own?
In a column regarding Dietrich Bonhoeffer, shouldn't Cal Thomas have
been a bit more reserved in his praise of the theologian executed by the
Nazis?
Bonhoeffer should be honored for his stand against tyranny and for modeling many of the values Christians strive to incorporate into their own lives such as standing up for what they believe to be right even when it is not the popular thing to do.
But in terms of belief and doctrine, Bonhoeffer is far from being the ideal Christian many of our religious leaders uplift him to be.
According to Biblical Discernment Ministries, Bonehoffer undermined the sinlessness of Jesus, downplayed individual salvation (instead equating that eternal state with church membership), and suggested that Christ's Resurrection was not so much an historical event but rather a mythological one (a fancy way of saying that the event is probably just a story from which we can draw inspiration but not likely one that actually transpired).
In the Christian life, one's profession of faith must be backed by more than mere words.
However, since grace is by faith and that not of ourselves, neither can one rely on one's works if there is not a solid doctrinal foundation there to back up the eternality of such deeds.
It is when we downplay the objective reality of the Savior that we open ourselves up to a wide variety of spiritual delusions that not only endanger ourselves but also threaten those around us.
By Frederick Meekins
Bonhoeffer should be honored for his stand against tyranny and for modeling many of the values Christians strive to incorporate into their own lives such as standing up for what they believe to be right even when it is not the popular thing to do.
But in terms of belief and doctrine, Bonhoeffer is far from being the ideal Christian many of our religious leaders uplift him to be.
According to Biblical Discernment Ministries, Bonehoffer undermined the sinlessness of Jesus, downplayed individual salvation (instead equating that eternal state with church membership), and suggested that Christ's Resurrection was not so much an historical event but rather a mythological one (a fancy way of saying that the event is probably just a story from which we can draw inspiration but not likely one that actually transpired).
In the Christian life, one's profession of faith must be backed by more than mere words.
However, since grace is by faith and that not of ourselves, neither can one rely on one's works if there is not a solid doctrinal foundation there to back up the eternality of such deeds.
It is when we downplay the objective reality of the Savior that we open ourselves up to a wide variety of spiritual delusions that not only endanger ourselves but also threaten those around us.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
Monday, August 31, 2015
Headline Potpourri #78
That's quite a racket some missionaries and evangelists have got. Pretty much go to the same church once every five years or so and essentially preach the same message. I didn't have a problem so much with the content of the message. However, I was profoundly repulsed by the speaker for the second time essentially having those that would stand against the Anti-Christ to come forward, with those remaining in the pews made to look like they were closet devil worshipers. Creeped out by the Jonestown vibe given off by such manipulative histrionics, as the easily controllable dutifully went forward, as with the last time this speaker was at church, I got up and walked out. It was too bad I could not muster the courage to say “Hail Satan!” if that is the kind of impression and suspicion this revivalist seems to employ as a regular part of his homiletical repertoire. If one is to be so concerned about the Anti-Christ, isn't conditioning people to comply with totalitarian authorities without question part of readying the world for that tyrant's takeover?
Regarding this “Who Do You Think You Are” genealogy program. You yourself are not guilty if your ancestors held slaves. Likewise, it says nothing of your own goodness in terms of the race issue if your ancestors were involved with the abolition movement.
If people feel led to walk forward in church to get their lives right with God, they should be encouraged to do so. However, when you rhetorically manipulate a congregation in such a way where those not yielding to the invitation of the message are the ones remaining in the pews, the homilist has crossed a line of propriety. Is the speaker so naive that he does not realize that most are coming forward merely out of a compulsion towards group conformity rather from out of a sense of sincere religious devotion?
Father Jonathan Morris said that discussing the possibility of human/robot marriage on the Greg Gutfeld Show had to be the low point of his career. But shouldn't he consider the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of moral reflection? Just a few years ago, didn't gay marriage seem like a similar kind of impossibility?
On “The Five”, Geraldo claimed Donald Trump's proposal to deport the illegal alien families of American born children would be inhumane. Geraldo then invoked the image of Elian Gonzalez being apprehended by federal agents. Did he get as worked up regarding the Branch Davidian children or the family of Randy Weaver? Does he speak out as vigorously against crimes committed by the illegal aliens?
Establishment shill Dana Perino insisted that Trump's proposal to deport illegal families would be impractical. Had she been in the Poland of the 1940's, she would have probably said the same thing about repelling the Wehrmacht. Should the Red Chinese land troops in her lily White native Wyoming, would she be singing the same tune?
Presidential candidate John Kaisch says it is inhumane to deport illegal alien families. One must presume that there was a time when John Kaisch did not own any particular domiciles that he does now. When he returns home, would it be inhumane for him to repel from his premises someone that has taken up residence during his absence because these holdings were at one time not his? And when Chinese invasion forces one day land on America's shores, will it be inhumane to repel them from our territories as well? While we are at it, maybe Kasich can call for the repeal of the Third Amendment if it is inhumane to deny anyone access to your living quarters. Maybe every American ought to be compelled to take in foreign borders who will proceed to soil the property beyond repair.
Filling in for Mark Levin, Dan Bongino droned on and one about privatizing Social Security. Fine and dandy. But what would be done to protect the elderly from falling into destitution and starvation should the economy tank even further?
When asked if the Clinton server had been wiped, Hillary responded, “What? Like with a cloth or something?” The presidential candidate must have thought that the reporter was inquiring as to Bill's procedure to clean up his genetic residue after he has had his way with the hired help.
Contrary to Greg Gutfeld, prolifers are not morally obligated to allow anchorbabies to remain here. If one country is no better than any other as insisted by the cultural relativists, why can't families remained unified on the other side of the border? Especially in light of how Evangelicals such as Dr. Dobson and Russell Moore attempting to ingratiate themselves with Hispanosupremacist subversives constantly harp the propaganda regarding how family-oriented Mexican culture is.
The Frederick County Council voted to repeal a law that made English the jurisdiction's official language. Supporters applauding this call for linguistic surrender insisted that the legislation authorizing an explicit elocutionary preference sent the wrong message. Apparently the only acceptable message in the postmodern era is that we despise the United States in general and White America in particular to such an extent that we will do everything within our power to bring about our own social demise and eventual cultural destruction.
The children born to illegal aliens violating our borders can be allowed to remain as U.S. citizens. However, it does not follow that the parents of such children should be allowed to remain here. If they desire to remain with the child, they can return with the child to the family's country of origin. If they desire the child to remain in the United States, they may be allowed to surrender the child to a loving American family and sever any future claims to the child.
If governments are prepared to destroy property and ruin lives to punish businesses refusing to comply with the tyranny of sodomite matrimony, why is it an outrage to deport illegal alien families?
On an episode of American Pickers, the itinerant scroungers bartered with someone with Iron Eyes Cody memorabilia. Given that he was Italian rather than American Indian, doesn't that make him the Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King of his day?
A poll asks do you approve of Ted Cruz calling Mitch McConnell a liar on the floor of the Senate? If the shoe fits, why not? One of the reasons the country is in the mess that it is that so many of these politicians will drone on and on within the halls of the legislature employing faux rhetoric such as “My good colleague from the state of such and such.” Then afterwards they will go get liquored up together and even bed the same whore with each other's compliments.
Shouldn't tolerancemongers be even more outraged at Oprah Winfrey for financing an Afrosupremacist scholarship rather than at a White dude attempting to take advantage of these funds by passing himself off as Black? Some will respond that Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to bestow her funds on anyone she desires for the purposes of furthering someone's education. Would those making such broadminded pronouncements in favor of individual liberty maintain that same position if Pat Buchanan endowed a similar scholarship for which only non-Jewish Caucasians would be eligible? And if we are to be psychologically conditioned to reflexively respond that race does not exist, on what grounds one condemn someone for claiming to be something that does not exist?If someone claimed that they were Kryptonian, it's doubtful the story would make it onto the nightly news unless in a deluded state they lept from a tall building in a single bound only to go splat on the concrete below.
Isn't saying one is not going to run a negative campaign itself a statement of negativity?
Why are Americans wanting to send anchor babies back to their family's country of origin meanspirited but not the Mexicans unwilling to open their borders and public treasury to the foreign born.
If convicted of manslaughter, since he still has a penis, will BRUCE Jenner be tossed in the ladies or gents slammer?
If someone is going to publicly comment that they had a good vacation and recommended the destination but weren't going to tell the audience where they had been but would only reveal such in private conversation if asked, that must have been one humdinger of a nudist beach or kinky sex club.
In reference to an upcoming international supper, a pastor remarked that he was tired of spaghetti and meatballs offered during such contrived celebrations. Instead, he insisted upon a real international experience. Does that mean someone will be bringing goat eyeballs, dysentery, and a stomach pump? In encouragement of his request, the pastor remarked how he often brags to others regarding the international nature of his congregation. This is worthy of a few observations. First, isn't to invite parishioners to bring a dish reflective of their heritage and then to badmouth spaghetti from the pulpit a denigration of those of Italian heritage? Secondly, if we are to hold to the principle that individuals are to be judged not by the color of their skin but rather by the content of their character, isn't it as much of a sin for a pastor to brag how international his congregation is as it would be for a minister from the deep south to celebrate that his congregation was all White? Thirdly, does a smattering of families from perhaps three or four other countries constitute an international congregation? For despite a few cultural differences, don't most American Blacks eat nearly the same foods as American Whites? Interesting how American food isn't good enough for a church dinner but American money is certainly demanded for the collection plate.
If a pastor applauds from the pulpit the remarks of Pittsburgh Steeler James Harrison that sometimes doing one's best still isn't good enough for recognition, perhaps the ongoing decline in the offering is apparently a reflection of that universal truth.
If it is improper for a Christian to judge the validity or depth of another Christian's faith on the basis of certain behaviors or actions, why doesn't this principle apply to a woman that wears otherwise modest pants?
If one is going to criticize Christians critical of other Christians, why would one identify quite explicitly with the Christian Independent Fundamentalist movement?
If a White gunman had murdered two Black broadcasters on live TV, wouldn't the horrific deed have been categorized as a hate crime by now?
In light of the broadcasters murdered on live TV, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe observed that there is too much gun violence in America. But as in the case of this particular gunman, the vast majority of these killers have more in common politically with the Governor than with either the NRA or the Tea Party movement.
If the Pope is going to badmouth the United States for widespread use of air conditioning, does he intend to level similar criticism against a Spanish festival where the main event is a massive tomato fight?
In his book “Blinded By Might”, columnist Cal Thomas suggested that funds spent in pursuit of political agendas should instead be directed towards causes more directly related to the Gospel and criticized how direct fund raising appeals are largely negative in tone. Then why is he now shilling for a Media Research Center cruise to the Caribbean? Why are elites such as himself allowed to wallow in ostentatious luxury while they instruct the rest of us how to allocate every spare dime?
Donald Trump is correct that the on air murder of two broadcasters is not about guns. But shouldn't Donald Trump be among the last to call for increased scrutiny of those society deems as mentally imbalanced?
Wanting to continue to make whoopee with his foreign-born wife, Jeb Bush insists that journalists deserve more dignity than what Donald Trump extended to Univision propagandist Jorge Ramos. What should happen now is for someone from a Tea Party news outlet or perhaps even Breitbart to go into a Jeb Bush press conference and to begin heckling or disrupting from the get go to see if they will be treated any better or if what Jeb is enunciating is merely a double standard favoring his fellow Hispanosupremacists.
By utilizing a formula that takes into consideration older poll results to determine who qualifies for a slot in the debate the network is to host, isn't CNN attempting to manipulate results in favor of establishmentarian elites?
A throng of Black Lives Matters malcontents disrupted an address by Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. At this event, a number of crime fighting initiatives were announced. Among those that sparked these protests were proposals to deploy more police officers on the streets and to search for prohibited firearms in the homes of convicts on parole. This is how this translates for those that adhere to common sense or at least a limited degree of logic. Any other time, these subversives want guns taken away from law abiding citizens. However, according to this civic disruption, firearms apparently ought to remain in the hands of those with criminal records that have proven themselves incapable of handling this constitutional responsibility so that they may continue to victimize innocent citizens.
By Frederick Meekins
Regarding this “Who Do You Think You Are” genealogy program. You yourself are not guilty if your ancestors held slaves. Likewise, it says nothing of your own goodness in terms of the race issue if your ancestors were involved with the abolition movement.
If people feel led to walk forward in church to get their lives right with God, they should be encouraged to do so. However, when you rhetorically manipulate a congregation in such a way where those not yielding to the invitation of the message are the ones remaining in the pews, the homilist has crossed a line of propriety. Is the speaker so naive that he does not realize that most are coming forward merely out of a compulsion towards group conformity rather from out of a sense of sincere religious devotion?
Father Jonathan Morris said that discussing the possibility of human/robot marriage on the Greg Gutfeld Show had to be the low point of his career. But shouldn't he consider the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of moral reflection? Just a few years ago, didn't gay marriage seem like a similar kind of impossibility?
On “The Five”, Geraldo claimed Donald Trump's proposal to deport the illegal alien families of American born children would be inhumane. Geraldo then invoked the image of Elian Gonzalez being apprehended by federal agents. Did he get as worked up regarding the Branch Davidian children or the family of Randy Weaver? Does he speak out as vigorously against crimes committed by the illegal aliens?
Establishment shill Dana Perino insisted that Trump's proposal to deport illegal families would be impractical. Had she been in the Poland of the 1940's, she would have probably said the same thing about repelling the Wehrmacht. Should the Red Chinese land troops in her lily White native Wyoming, would she be singing the same tune?
Presidential candidate John Kaisch says it is inhumane to deport illegal alien families. One must presume that there was a time when John Kaisch did not own any particular domiciles that he does now. When he returns home, would it be inhumane for him to repel from his premises someone that has taken up residence during his absence because these holdings were at one time not his? And when Chinese invasion forces one day land on America's shores, will it be inhumane to repel them from our territories as well? While we are at it, maybe Kasich can call for the repeal of the Third Amendment if it is inhumane to deny anyone access to your living quarters. Maybe every American ought to be compelled to take in foreign borders who will proceed to soil the property beyond repair.
Filling in for Mark Levin, Dan Bongino droned on and one about privatizing Social Security. Fine and dandy. But what would be done to protect the elderly from falling into destitution and starvation should the economy tank even further?
When asked if the Clinton server had been wiped, Hillary responded, “What? Like with a cloth or something?” The presidential candidate must have thought that the reporter was inquiring as to Bill's procedure to clean up his genetic residue after he has had his way with the hired help.
Contrary to Greg Gutfeld, prolifers are not morally obligated to allow anchorbabies to remain here. If one country is no better than any other as insisted by the cultural relativists, why can't families remained unified on the other side of the border? Especially in light of how Evangelicals such as Dr. Dobson and Russell Moore attempting to ingratiate themselves with Hispanosupremacist subversives constantly harp the propaganda regarding how family-oriented Mexican culture is.
The Frederick County Council voted to repeal a law that made English the jurisdiction's official language. Supporters applauding this call for linguistic surrender insisted that the legislation authorizing an explicit elocutionary preference sent the wrong message. Apparently the only acceptable message in the postmodern era is that we despise the United States in general and White America in particular to such an extent that we will do everything within our power to bring about our own social demise and eventual cultural destruction.
The children born to illegal aliens violating our borders can be allowed to remain as U.S. citizens. However, it does not follow that the parents of such children should be allowed to remain here. If they desire to remain with the child, they can return with the child to the family's country of origin. If they desire the child to remain in the United States, they may be allowed to surrender the child to a loving American family and sever any future claims to the child.
If governments are prepared to destroy property and ruin lives to punish businesses refusing to comply with the tyranny of sodomite matrimony, why is it an outrage to deport illegal alien families?
On an episode of American Pickers, the itinerant scroungers bartered with someone with Iron Eyes Cody memorabilia. Given that he was Italian rather than American Indian, doesn't that make him the Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King of his day?
A poll asks do you approve of Ted Cruz calling Mitch McConnell a liar on the floor of the Senate? If the shoe fits, why not? One of the reasons the country is in the mess that it is that so many of these politicians will drone on and on within the halls of the legislature employing faux rhetoric such as “My good colleague from the state of such and such.” Then afterwards they will go get liquored up together and even bed the same whore with each other's compliments.
Shouldn't tolerancemongers be even more outraged at Oprah Winfrey for financing an Afrosupremacist scholarship rather than at a White dude attempting to take advantage of these funds by passing himself off as Black? Some will respond that Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to bestow her funds on anyone she desires for the purposes of furthering someone's education. Would those making such broadminded pronouncements in favor of individual liberty maintain that same position if Pat Buchanan endowed a similar scholarship for which only non-Jewish Caucasians would be eligible? And if we are to be psychologically conditioned to reflexively respond that race does not exist, on what grounds one condemn someone for claiming to be something that does not exist?If someone claimed that they were Kryptonian, it's doubtful the story would make it onto the nightly news unless in a deluded state they lept from a tall building in a single bound only to go splat on the concrete below.
Isn't saying one is not going to run a negative campaign itself a statement of negativity?
Why are Americans wanting to send anchor babies back to their family's country of origin meanspirited but not the Mexicans unwilling to open their borders and public treasury to the foreign born.
If convicted of manslaughter, since he still has a penis, will BRUCE Jenner be tossed in the ladies or gents slammer?
If someone is going to publicly comment that they had a good vacation and recommended the destination but weren't going to tell the audience where they had been but would only reveal such in private conversation if asked, that must have been one humdinger of a nudist beach or kinky sex club.
In reference to an upcoming international supper, a pastor remarked that he was tired of spaghetti and meatballs offered during such contrived celebrations. Instead, he insisted upon a real international experience. Does that mean someone will be bringing goat eyeballs, dysentery, and a stomach pump? In encouragement of his request, the pastor remarked how he often brags to others regarding the international nature of his congregation. This is worthy of a few observations. First, isn't to invite parishioners to bring a dish reflective of their heritage and then to badmouth spaghetti from the pulpit a denigration of those of Italian heritage? Secondly, if we are to hold to the principle that individuals are to be judged not by the color of their skin but rather by the content of their character, isn't it as much of a sin for a pastor to brag how international his congregation is as it would be for a minister from the deep south to celebrate that his congregation was all White? Thirdly, does a smattering of families from perhaps three or four other countries constitute an international congregation? For despite a few cultural differences, don't most American Blacks eat nearly the same foods as American Whites? Interesting how American food isn't good enough for a church dinner but American money is certainly demanded for the collection plate.
If a pastor applauds from the pulpit the remarks of Pittsburgh Steeler James Harrison that sometimes doing one's best still isn't good enough for recognition, perhaps the ongoing decline in the offering is apparently a reflection of that universal truth.
If it is improper for a Christian to judge the validity or depth of another Christian's faith on the basis of certain behaviors or actions, why doesn't this principle apply to a woman that wears otherwise modest pants?
If one is going to criticize Christians critical of other Christians, why would one identify quite explicitly with the Christian Independent Fundamentalist movement?
If a White gunman had murdered two Black broadcasters on live TV, wouldn't the horrific deed have been categorized as a hate crime by now?
In light of the broadcasters murdered on live TV, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe observed that there is too much gun violence in America. But as in the case of this particular gunman, the vast majority of these killers have more in common politically with the Governor than with either the NRA or the Tea Party movement.
If the Pope is going to badmouth the United States for widespread use of air conditioning, does he intend to level similar criticism against a Spanish festival where the main event is a massive tomato fight?
In his book “Blinded By Might”, columnist Cal Thomas suggested that funds spent in pursuit of political agendas should instead be directed towards causes more directly related to the Gospel and criticized how direct fund raising appeals are largely negative in tone. Then why is he now shilling for a Media Research Center cruise to the Caribbean? Why are elites such as himself allowed to wallow in ostentatious luxury while they instruct the rest of us how to allocate every spare dime?
Donald Trump is correct that the on air murder of two broadcasters is not about guns. But shouldn't Donald Trump be among the last to call for increased scrutiny of those society deems as mentally imbalanced?
Wanting to continue to make whoopee with his foreign-born wife, Jeb Bush insists that journalists deserve more dignity than what Donald Trump extended to Univision propagandist Jorge Ramos. What should happen now is for someone from a Tea Party news outlet or perhaps even Breitbart to go into a Jeb Bush press conference and to begin heckling or disrupting from the get go to see if they will be treated any better or if what Jeb is enunciating is merely a double standard favoring his fellow Hispanosupremacists.
By utilizing a formula that takes into consideration older poll results to determine who qualifies for a slot in the debate the network is to host, isn't CNN attempting to manipulate results in favor of establishmentarian elites?
A throng of Black Lives Matters malcontents disrupted an address by Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. At this event, a number of crime fighting initiatives were announced. Among those that sparked these protests were proposals to deploy more police officers on the streets and to search for prohibited firearms in the homes of convicts on parole. This is how this translates for those that adhere to common sense or at least a limited degree of logic. Any other time, these subversives want guns taken away from law abiding citizens. However, according to this civic disruption, firearms apparently ought to remain in the hands of those with criminal records that have proven themselves incapable of handling this constitutional responsibility so that they may continue to victimize innocent citizens.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
World Invokes Charleston Massacre To Denigrate The Bill Of Rights
An Associated Press article datelined Beijing described how the world
fell into a state of shocked lamentation over the gun violence and
racism believed to plague the Untied States in light of the horrific
Charleston Church Massacre.
A number of the bewildered questioned how a liberty such as the right to bear arms as enshrined by the Second Amendment could be allowed in the U.S. Constitution. Precisely to serve as a protection and bulwark against the systematic execution of dissidents as has transpired in the People's Republic of China throughout that regime's history.
The Mexican newspaper La Jornada was quoted as saying that the United States has become a “structurally violent state where force is frequently used domestically and internationally to resolve differences.” Mind you, Mexico is a Latin American country where it is not uncommon for narcoterrorists to role decapitated heads out onto disco dance floors in order to intimidate their opponents.
Law enforcement in that corrupt land are little better. Often, there, so-called public safety officers sexually brutalize immigrants from other nations while the leadership of this neighbor to our south lectures us as to why we are to lavish upon the riffraff fleeing that failed state with the proverbial three hots and a cot while they await their single family split-level which they will proceed to stuff to the rafters with half the population of their native village.
And speaking of severed heads, dead beats from the Islamic world also proceeded to weigh in on the Charleston Church shooting as if violence never breaks out in regions where the majority of the population embraces that particular errant religion.
One Indonesian intellectual bemoaned that the tragedy shocked many. But more so than the decapitation and ghastly execution videos perfected by Al Qada and now the organization's ISIS spin off as a propaganda technique?
The article went on to say, “In Britain, the attack reinforced the view that America has too many guns and too many racists” and “the obscene proliferation of guns only magnifies tragedies.”
For you see, the residents of Britain tend to be a bit old fashioned when they want to kill someone for harboring beliefs with which they disagree. They just grab personnel from a nearby military base and knife them along the side of the road as they proceed to videotape a pronouncement drenched in their victim's blood. This must be considered across the pond the epitome of artisinal craftsmanship and civility.
Of the shootings, an interviewed Japanese patent attorney reflected, “Racially motivated killings are simply something the Japanese as a people cannot understand.” As an ethnicity inclined towards economics and efficiency, one supposes so. After all, why outrightly murder someone when they can make perfectly acceptable sex slaves first, a fate inflicted upon numerous Koreans forced to serve as “comfort women”.
Critics will respond that that atrocity was decades ago. Indeed it was. Just as were the shortcomings that assorted minority front groups and agitators continue to harp upon no matter how many set asiides and entitlement programs are lavished upon them.
Of the shooting, a Philippine human rights activist said, “That would be no different from a suicide bomber. For a jihadist says, 'I will be with Allah if I do that.' The other says, 'I am proving white supremacy here'.”
That comparison depends upon how you look at it.
The comparison between the jihadist and mass murderer Dylan Roof is accurate from the standpoint of each of these terrorists having embraced false belief systems inspiring each adherent to perpetrate the vilest of acts violating God's eternal absolutes in the pursuit of a Satanic objective. However, there are also differences that the astute observer of this kind of phenomena must be diligent to point out.
Across America, even those willing to take a stand on behalf of the Confederate flag (despite the almost dictatorial opposition galvanized against this symbol of Southern heritage) are repulsed and sickened by the actions of human pus wad Dylan Roof. If anything, these “rednecks” and “hayseeds” are among the few trodding this earth consistent in their call to apply the death penalty against anyone that takes an innocent human life.
However, things are markedly different in the Muslim world. There, on 9/11, exuberant Palestinians took to the streets in celebration. The way children were given candy to commemorate the event brings to mind the prophecy in the Book of Revelation when gifts will be exchanged to celebrate the Anti-Christ executing the Two Witnesses whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem until they are risen from the dead for all the world to see.
To his credit, one Indonesian intellectual said, “Terrorism and radicalism can appear in every strata of society under various guises and in the name of ethnicity, religion and race.”
Those pulling the trigger or lighting the fuse to harm the body and stoke the initial fear are obviously the most guilty in regards to this profound variety of crime. However, the greater injury inflicted might instead be by those attempting to capitalize on these tragedies to manipulate those freedoms much easier to surrender than they will be to back once the immediate danger has passed.
By Frederick Meekins
A number of the bewildered questioned how a liberty such as the right to bear arms as enshrined by the Second Amendment could be allowed in the U.S. Constitution. Precisely to serve as a protection and bulwark against the systematic execution of dissidents as has transpired in the People's Republic of China throughout that regime's history.
The Mexican newspaper La Jornada was quoted as saying that the United States has become a “structurally violent state where force is frequently used domestically and internationally to resolve differences.” Mind you, Mexico is a Latin American country where it is not uncommon for narcoterrorists to role decapitated heads out onto disco dance floors in order to intimidate their opponents.
Law enforcement in that corrupt land are little better. Often, there, so-called public safety officers sexually brutalize immigrants from other nations while the leadership of this neighbor to our south lectures us as to why we are to lavish upon the riffraff fleeing that failed state with the proverbial three hots and a cot while they await their single family split-level which they will proceed to stuff to the rafters with half the population of their native village.
And speaking of severed heads, dead beats from the Islamic world also proceeded to weigh in on the Charleston Church shooting as if violence never breaks out in regions where the majority of the population embraces that particular errant religion.
One Indonesian intellectual bemoaned that the tragedy shocked many. But more so than the decapitation and ghastly execution videos perfected by Al Qada and now the organization's ISIS spin off as a propaganda technique?
The article went on to say, “In Britain, the attack reinforced the view that America has too many guns and too many racists” and “the obscene proliferation of guns only magnifies tragedies.”
For you see, the residents of Britain tend to be a bit old fashioned when they want to kill someone for harboring beliefs with which they disagree. They just grab personnel from a nearby military base and knife them along the side of the road as they proceed to videotape a pronouncement drenched in their victim's blood. This must be considered across the pond the epitome of artisinal craftsmanship and civility.
Of the shootings, an interviewed Japanese patent attorney reflected, “Racially motivated killings are simply something the Japanese as a people cannot understand.” As an ethnicity inclined towards economics and efficiency, one supposes so. After all, why outrightly murder someone when they can make perfectly acceptable sex slaves first, a fate inflicted upon numerous Koreans forced to serve as “comfort women”.
Critics will respond that that atrocity was decades ago. Indeed it was. Just as were the shortcomings that assorted minority front groups and agitators continue to harp upon no matter how many set asiides and entitlement programs are lavished upon them.
Of the shooting, a Philippine human rights activist said, “That would be no different from a suicide bomber. For a jihadist says, 'I will be with Allah if I do that.' The other says, 'I am proving white supremacy here'.”
That comparison depends upon how you look at it.
The comparison between the jihadist and mass murderer Dylan Roof is accurate from the standpoint of each of these terrorists having embraced false belief systems inspiring each adherent to perpetrate the vilest of acts violating God's eternal absolutes in the pursuit of a Satanic objective. However, there are also differences that the astute observer of this kind of phenomena must be diligent to point out.
Across America, even those willing to take a stand on behalf of the Confederate flag (despite the almost dictatorial opposition galvanized against this symbol of Southern heritage) are repulsed and sickened by the actions of human pus wad Dylan Roof. If anything, these “rednecks” and “hayseeds” are among the few trodding this earth consistent in their call to apply the death penalty against anyone that takes an innocent human life.
However, things are markedly different in the Muslim world. There, on 9/11, exuberant Palestinians took to the streets in celebration. The way children were given candy to commemorate the event brings to mind the prophecy in the Book of Revelation when gifts will be exchanged to celebrate the Anti-Christ executing the Two Witnesses whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem until they are risen from the dead for all the world to see.
To his credit, one Indonesian intellectual said, “Terrorism and radicalism can appear in every strata of society under various guises and in the name of ethnicity, religion and race.”
Those pulling the trigger or lighting the fuse to harm the body and stoke the initial fear are obviously the most guilty in regards to this profound variety of crime. However, the greater injury inflicted might instead be by those attempting to capitalize on these tragedies to manipulate those freedoms much easier to surrender than they will be to back once the immediate danger has passed.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Monday, August 24, 2015
Is Peewee League Part Of The Darwinian Struggle?
NFL linebacker James Harrison has confiscated his sons' peewee football league participation trophies.
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Friday, August 21, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)