Monday, November 02, 2015
Friday, October 30, 2015
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Do Riot Defenders Believe Perpetrators Even Human?
An article in the 12/2014 edition of the Catholic Worker titled
“Ferguson: Anytown USA” states, “I've realized that as a person
indoctrinated into white culture, I have at times been thoughtful in the
way I talk about nonviolence to people who have been absorbing state
violence for decades...Lately I've heard far too many white people
complaining about resistance as undisciplined, intimidating, or a
riot....Who gets to decide whether an action is nonviolent?”
That passage contains a number of noteworthy assumptions.
Firstly, its author is suggesting that minority hooligans be allowed to destroy whatever the Sheol they please.
Secondly, the article is advocating a different standard for White and Black people.
For example, by raising the question of “Who gets to decide whether an action is now violent or not?” what the author is really saying is that, while minorities should be allowed to vandalize until their reprobate hearts are content, if a White person criticizes such actions, that is to be viewed as a profoundly inappropriate offense worthy of a variety of sanctions as the mobs or the manipulative demagogues of such rampaging throngs might determine.
There is also a hidden assumption that those advocating this kind of perspective will go to even greater lengths to conceal.
That is none other than that, if minorities are not to be held to the same standards as White people, then those holding to the assumption deep down believe that Black people aren't fully people at all.
By Frederick Meekins
That passage contains a number of noteworthy assumptions.
Firstly, its author is suggesting that minority hooligans be allowed to destroy whatever the Sheol they please.
Secondly, the article is advocating a different standard for White and Black people.
For example, by raising the question of “Who gets to decide whether an action is now violent or not?” what the author is really saying is that, while minorities should be allowed to vandalize until their reprobate hearts are content, if a White person criticizes such actions, that is to be viewed as a profoundly inappropriate offense worthy of a variety of sanctions as the mobs or the manipulative demagogues of such rampaging throngs might determine.
There is also a hidden assumption that those advocating this kind of perspective will go to even greater lengths to conceal.
That is none other than that, if minorities are not to be held to the same standards as White people, then those holding to the assumption deep down believe that Black people aren't fully people at all.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
What Other Vehicular Activities Do Statists Intend To Ban?
The Maryland legislature considered a proposal that would have outlawed
smoking in a car with a child under eight years of age.
Such measures raise a number of questions and observations.
Firstly, why is it acceptable to smoke in a vehicle with an 8 year old child but wrong to do so around a seven and a half year old?
Secondly, if you can't smoke around children in a car, who is to say what other legal and decent activities you will eventually be forbidden from enjoying in the presence of minors?
In order to indoctrinate children as sufficiently communal, what is then to prevent the state from forbidding the playing of political talk radio in the presence of anyone under the age of 18?
To ensure that children are indoctrinated to make what Frau Obama considers to be appropriate nutritional selections, what is to prevent legislation that would forbid the consumption of fast food in the presence of minors?
Thirdly, does this mean parents would be required to have an official ID to prove the ages of their children.
Because do seven and eight year olds really look all that different?
If so, why is this appropriate but not requiring adults to show photo ID's when voting?
For is not the health of a constitutional democratic republic as delicate as that of a young child?
By Frederick Meekins
Such measures raise a number of questions and observations.
Firstly, why is it acceptable to smoke in a vehicle with an 8 year old child but wrong to do so around a seven and a half year old?
Secondly, if you can't smoke around children in a car, who is to say what other legal and decent activities you will eventually be forbidden from enjoying in the presence of minors?
In order to indoctrinate children as sufficiently communal, what is then to prevent the state from forbidding the playing of political talk radio in the presence of anyone under the age of 18?
To ensure that children are indoctrinated to make what Frau Obama considers to be appropriate nutritional selections, what is to prevent legislation that would forbid the consumption of fast food in the presence of minors?
Thirdly, does this mean parents would be required to have an official ID to prove the ages of their children.
Because do seven and eight year olds really look all that different?
If so, why is this appropriate but not requiring adults to show photo ID's when voting?
For is not the health of a constitutional democratic republic as delicate as that of a young child?
By Frederick Meekins
Why Shouldn’t Brat Refusing To Obey Police Officer Be Forcibly Removed From Classroom?
Click On The Headline
Monday, October 26, 2015
Baptist Pastor Advocates The Abuse & Persecution Of Other Christians
In addressing the Oregon community college shooting, Pastor William
Strum of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina observed
in remarks posted at SermonAudio how this incident likely portends the
increasing martyrdom of believers as America becomes markedly less
Christian.
The minister then snidely remarked that we don't want that but would rather have our own rights.
The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.
However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.
For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?
What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?
Is he going to slink away without even a protest?
Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.
By Frederick Meekins
The minister then snidely remarked that we don't want that but would rather have our own rights.
The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.
However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.
For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?
What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?
Is he going to slink away without even a protest?
Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Fundamentalist Hardliner Takes A Stand Against Everything Except That Which Matters
With some of these hardline Fundamental Baptists, it seems everything must be explicitly “religious” 24/7.
For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.
Fine and dandy.
However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.
In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.
Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.
This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.
Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?
It's just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.
by Frederick Meekins
For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.
Fine and dandy.
However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.
In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.
Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.
This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.
Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?
It's just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
African Cardinal Condemns Liberalism & Islamists As The Beasts Of The Apocalypse
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Headline Potpourri #79
It is being discussed on Fox News whether or not social media should shut down the accounts of terrorists and mass murderers. All well and good. But don't these sites already have a track record of stifling dissent in the name of upholding COMMUNITY standards? To Hillary, you are already a terrorist if you oppose prenatal organ harvesting and birth control handouts.
In her condemnation of the growing sentiment that millions of illegals should be deported, Hillary remarked that it would be appalling to seize these people from their homes. But if these individuals contracted for these domiciles and dwellings under false pretenses, aren't they residing in what essentially amounts to a stolen home?
Mount McKinley is being renamed “Denali” in an act of cultural surrender to the indigenous population. It is claimed that the gesture is in reverence to the preferences of of the native peoples. However, it is doubtful those despising the Great White Father to this extent will renounce their claims to any welfare benefits or technology lavished upon those insisting they'd rather retain primitive Stone Age lifestyles. It will be argued that why ought William McKinley be deserving of having such a majestic landmark named in his honor. After all, he never set foot in Alaska and was assassinated by an anarchist who politically probably had a great deal in common with Occupy Wall Street and the deadbeats that nearly burned Ferguson to the ground. But what has President Obama done to be worthy of all those things named in his honor other than emerge from his mother's birth canal half-Black?
A homeschool activist insisted on a podcast that the personalities we assume on Facebook aren't real. So how is that much different than what transpires in the offline world?
If R.C. Sproul, Jr. did nothing more at the Ashley Madison website than take a peek and leave, is there really a need to suspend him from his post a Ligionier Ministries? This is an especially valid question if he preemptively confessed to the transgression. He would have probably been better off keeping this to himself, crossing his fingers, lowering his head like Ted Kennedy at a sexual harassment hearing, and hoping that no one noticed. Should he receive a Kmart circular in the mail and linger a bit on the lingerie page as the thumbs his way to electronics or lawn care, should he lose his livelihood over that as well? Shouldn't the more shocking angle of this story be that this minister, that demanded such a high level perfection of those around him that at one time he wouldn't allow a family to leave that no longer wanted to be a part of his congregation, is himself susceptible to common human impulses?
The staff of the student newspaper at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, DC is tossing a fit over the principal asserting a prerogative to approve the edition before it goes to print. What's the big deal? This isn't 1990 anymore. Most of the youngsters have blogs and social media profiles to begin with. If these budding pecksniffs don't want the school to have prior authorization as to what the students plan to publish, why can't they skip the school paper altogether? The content will likely have a wide audience online anyway.
In a podcast, it was mentioned that, in one particular prayer group, if someone made a request they were asked if the petition would make one less or more dependent upon God. If believers are to be interrogated to that extent as to the legitimacy of their requests, won't most simply stop making verbalized communal meditative appeals during formalized religious exercises?
A radical homeschooler lamented on a podcast that today's congregations are gypsy-like in the way believers and seekers flow in and out of churches. That translates as one should remain in a congregation irrespective of how much you are abused there or how ill fitted you might be in terms of personality and the available ministry opportunities. You'd think with the way things are nowadays preachers might just be a little more grateful some people showed up if even for a short while.
If Kim Davis as a government employee refuses to issue gay marriage licenses, as they say in the South, “God bless her.” However, her doing so creates no obligation upon Christians in the civil service to implement their own convictions in the exact same manner. Are these ministries insisting that her particular stance ought to be that of all good people in similar positions going to pay the bills of those fired or imprisoned as a result?
Jeb Bush muttering in Spanish is as pathetic as another candidate yammering in Klingon in the hopes of getting Comicon votes.
Now that an Alaskan mountain has been renamed to placate Native Americans, are they going to put down the booze and get off the welfare?
From the concluding episode of “Falling Skies”, the ultimate message of the series is that extraterrestrial invasion will serve as a catalyst for global government. See how that works. I warn of this and I am dismissed as a lunatic. Spielberg repeatedly condition viewers with this message numerous times and he is heralded as a creative genius. From the final scene, ought we to conclude that Tom Mason is the Anti-Christ? Interesting it was a character named “Pope” who, despite himself being profoundly evil, might have been one of the few able to view the protagonist for the threat he would ultimately pose once the alien invasion had been repelled from the planet.
In a homiletical analysis, a pastor compared Kim Davis' imprisonment for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses to the beating received by the Apostles in the book of Acts for preaching the Gospel in defiance of the Sanhedrin. Kim Davis should not have been subjected to imprisonment for refusing to comply with the court order. However, the comparison of these examples of civil disobedience is weak and breaks down to a degree under scrutiny. Foremostly, Kim Davis was employed by the government to execute certain duties as directed. The Apostles were under no such mandate. Secondly, what other manners of conscience should a state official be allowed to impose upon others over which there is a variance of perspective? Should a Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist bureaucrat be allowed to deny permits for pork barbecue and shellfish eateries? Should an adherent of a Christian Identity cult be allowed to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples?
So regarding those that want the Syrian refugees imported to the United States. Will these people be relocated to Chevy Chase, Georgetown, Beverly Hills or the Hamptons?
Interesting. Saudi Arabia won't accept any refugees. So if they won't accept any of their own kind, why is the Western world so obligated?
At the local railway crossing, there is a now a sign that reads “No Train Horn”. Granted. The noise can be disturbing. But that railway was there literally a century before the Hipsters and Beatniks came flooding in, demanding everyone cater to their peculiarities. They want the quaintness of “small town” life (in comparison to the metropolis a few miles away), they should suck it up regarding the train whistle.
NBC anchor Jim Vance insisted that giving a child a trophy that they did not earn is a form of abuse. So does he intend to speak out as forcefully against Affirmative Action and racial quotas? So how many Syrian refugees will be moving into the Kasich household?
Regarding ministers that insist you must pray for them while they are preaching. Aren't they subtly pinning the blame on the pewfillers if the particular sermon is a flop or a dud?
A study claims that parents with four or more children are the happiest. However, as in the case of the Duggars, that does not necessarily mean that the children are any happier or better adjusted than anyone else. It might make for a fascinating study of how many surveyed in this research were adherents of sects where those that verbalize how they really felt would be threatened with ostracism or subjected to some form of chastisement for suggesting tha things might be less than peachy keen in regards to their inner mental or spiritual lives.
Did Obama also invite to the White House the urchin that masticated his toaster pastry into the form of a firearm?
Does President Obama also intend to invite to the White House the Virginia students suspended for wearing confederate flag apparel? Or is it only an act of courage to stand up for your beliefs when you agree with the prevailing elite?
Ann Coulter went overboard in verbalizing in connection with a religion/ethnicity one of the vilest profanities one could probably enunicate. But don't her frustrations exhibit a degree of validity? Why aren't Republican candidates as eager to protect the borders of the United States and the American people as they are those of Israel?
Instructive. The liberal media is in an uproar over Donald Trump failing to assail the accuracy of a statement made at a campaign event by a citizen daring to exercise the First Amendment by questioning the geography of President Obama's advent and religious loyalties. Yet it seems absolutely no journalistic resources have been expended to investigate this vigilant citizen's concern as to whether or not Islamists have organized jihadist training camps within the borders of the United States.
Regarding the National Geographic program “Live Free Or Die”. It is commendable that those depicted have the skills to live without electricity. However, it is a reflection of their own stupidity rather than something commendable regarding their character if these individuals deliberately decide to live without electricity.
In a podcast on the topic of submission to authority, a pastor said that women in the church are under the authority of his wife. Before such a claim is made over the airwaves, shouldn't the discerning listener be provided the details of this church's formalized leadership structure? For as the pastor's wife, her only formal role by default is as that of the pastor's wife. Her only church function is to make sure the pastor is fed, his underpants washed, and that he's carnally satisfied in certain ways. There is not a single Scripture giving that particular woman power over anyone else in that congregation --- either male or female.
During the Pope's visit to Washington, the Obama administration has invited a number of homosexual and transgender activists to the White House. Isn't that akin to inviting Islamic leaders to the White House and serving them pork barbecue?
It was suggested that there is carnal terminology that even married Christian couples should refrain from vocalizing even in the their own bedrooms. If someone wants to be that frigid in terms of their relationship, that's their business. However, there is no reason to spread such hangups to others. Reminds one of the old joke asking “Why don't Baptists do it standing up?” The answer: “It could lead to dancing.” Guess married couples shouldn't see one another without their cloths on either. No wonder a number believed the rumor awhile back about the pastor that wanted to punish those uttering unapproved dialog amidst the ecstasy of carnal passion.
Today, an Islamist front group is calling for Ben Carson to withdraw from the race for the Republican presidential nomination over comments the organization found offensive. If these demands are surrendered to, how long until these jihadist sympathizers call for the forfeiture of the lives of Americans over comments that adherents of this religion find offensive?
Instructive. The liberal media applauds Whoopi Goldberg's remarks that Christians viewing God as the highest authority shouldn't be working in government. The same liberal media is outraged that Ben Carson vocalized a preference that he'd rather not see a Muslim in the White House unless the particular heathen under consideration has renounced Sharia law. How is Carson's perspective any more exclusionary than that held by Hillary Clinton's supporters who are backing that particular candidate because it is widely believed that she doesn't possess a penis?
Do the same media subversives accusing Ben Carson of rejecting the Constitution get as worked up when President Obama blatantly violates the founding document of the United States?
So if we aren't to consider a candidate's underlying faith according to the establishmentarian media (which no one is supposed to admit has a noticeably high percentage of individuals of Hebraic origins), does that mean we would be obligated to elect an adherent of a racialist Christian Identity sect?
Critics are outraged at those of an entrepreneurial inclination deciding to sell their free tickets to the papal processional in New York. But how is that any worse than the Roman Catholic Church creating the impression that it controls access to the means of salvation often through a fee such as in the case of certain indulgences when the Bible clearly states that the only price is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
Was the student suspended last year for committing narrative dinocide also extended a invitation to the White House and United Nations or was he too White?
If an African immigrant is allowed to collect the offering while wearing brightly printed apparel, would an American be allowed to collect the offering while wearing a Hawaiian shirt? If the response is that to the African the garments that resemble silken sleep wear represent their best even if they have achieved bigshot status in America, would someone from a rural area be allowed to collect the offering while wearing camo? Likewise, would someone that frequented science fiction conventions be allowed to collect the offering while wearing a Starfleet uniform?
Over 700 killed during pilgrimage to Mecca. And how many died during the Pope's visit to Washington? Wonder if Pope Francis even appreciates this aspect of Christianity's superiority? Doesn't Trump realize that those most likely to vote for him most likely watch Fox as their primary broadcast news source? He's certainly not going to get any warm reception from MSNBC correspondents, pundits or loyal viewers. Makes one bristle how Trump might respond to domestic critics should he obtain any real power.
Jumbotrons were erected in Washington, DC so assembled throngs could hear the Pope's address to Congress. Does the Pope intend to condemn this as an expenditure of resources that could have actually alleviated the suffering of the poor? And what about the fossil fuels expended by thousands to catch nothing but a glimpse of a mere human being? Does he intend to speak out against this misdirected admiration? This hypocrisy is rising to near-Duggar levels.
According to Pope Francis, America must embrace immigrants because we can all trace our origins back to foreigners. Since Catholicism was not the original religion of the area of Rome known as the Vatican, by the Pope's logic, isn't he obligated to stand there with his hands underneath his vestments allowing Protestants to waltz on in and set up shop there who have nothing but contempt for the ritual and ecclesiology of the property's caretakers?
Representative Bob Brady pilfered the Pontiff's drinking glass in order to ingest the few remaining sips of water. Imagine what would have happened had the legislator stumbled upon the Pope's discarded toilet paper.
In a public service announcement, Today Show correspondent Al Roker insisted that we should travel by bicycle rather than automobile since it is better for the body. Mind you, he himself must have weighed nearly 300 pounds prior to the surgery that led up to him crapping in his pants while visiting the White House.
In a sermon series on the Book of Genesis, an Evangelical Anglican insisted that the days of creation as elaborated in the text were not so much to be understood literally. Rather, the passage is to be construed as metaphor to help the ignorant Hebrews under the leadership of Moses to understand that all things were created in an orderly fashion. If that is one's hermeneutical approach, doesn't the minister undermine his position when invoking this portion of Scripture to justify exclusive heterosexual marriage? Rather than as a command confining sexual union to male/female relationships, how does one then argue that the narrative of Adam and Eve isn't just a poetic image that carnal companionship should be found in whoever's arms one might happen to fall into?
Given the rise of Russia in Middle Eastern affairs, those maintaining that Gog and Magog in Ezekiel might be a reference to that particular nation aren't quite the buffoons that they seemed to be. The Vatican has clarified that the Pope's meeting with Kentucky clerk Kim Davis should not be construed as endorsement of her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay marriages. Interesting how he didn't mind interjecting himself into the immigration and wealth distribution debates.
A petition is being circulated at George Washington University wanting students to be allowed an opt out of animal dissection. But if they don't want to fulfill that part of the curriculum, shouldn't they select another field of study? Isn't this akin to an English major refusing to read books?
Trump claims Putin has an 80% approval rating in Russia. However, doesn't it take an extraordinary act of courage in Russia to admit publicly that one does not approve of the autocrat?
As to whether or not a President should uphold the Constitution over sharia law, in an interview with Eric Boling of Fox News, Donald Trump seemed to decline comment. He remarked that the argument raised over a position enunciated by Ben Carson is not the billionaire's argument to make. Interesting how he seems compelled to address nearly every other issue under the sun down to and including a fellow candidate's facial features.
New York City museums are being ordered to hand over demographic intelligence on staff members regarding race to municipal authorities if they want to continue to receive public funding. But isn't this the kind of leftwing nonsense these effette art galleries and such support imposing on other sectors of society such as business and religion?
A Florida libertarian senatorial candidate has admitted to sacrificing a goat and drinking the herbivore's blood as part of a religious ritual. As shocking as that sounds, it's probably isn't anymore depraved than what goes on at Bohemian Grove.
By Frederick Meekins
In her condemnation of the growing sentiment that millions of illegals should be deported, Hillary remarked that it would be appalling to seize these people from their homes. But if these individuals contracted for these domiciles and dwellings under false pretenses, aren't they residing in what essentially amounts to a stolen home?
Mount McKinley is being renamed “Denali” in an act of cultural surrender to the indigenous population. It is claimed that the gesture is in reverence to the preferences of of the native peoples. However, it is doubtful those despising the Great White Father to this extent will renounce their claims to any welfare benefits or technology lavished upon those insisting they'd rather retain primitive Stone Age lifestyles. It will be argued that why ought William McKinley be deserving of having such a majestic landmark named in his honor. After all, he never set foot in Alaska and was assassinated by an anarchist who politically probably had a great deal in common with Occupy Wall Street and the deadbeats that nearly burned Ferguson to the ground. But what has President Obama done to be worthy of all those things named in his honor other than emerge from his mother's birth canal half-Black?
A homeschool activist insisted on a podcast that the personalities we assume on Facebook aren't real. So how is that much different than what transpires in the offline world?
If R.C. Sproul, Jr. did nothing more at the Ashley Madison website than take a peek and leave, is there really a need to suspend him from his post a Ligionier Ministries? This is an especially valid question if he preemptively confessed to the transgression. He would have probably been better off keeping this to himself, crossing his fingers, lowering his head like Ted Kennedy at a sexual harassment hearing, and hoping that no one noticed. Should he receive a Kmart circular in the mail and linger a bit on the lingerie page as the thumbs his way to electronics or lawn care, should he lose his livelihood over that as well? Shouldn't the more shocking angle of this story be that this minister, that demanded such a high level perfection of those around him that at one time he wouldn't allow a family to leave that no longer wanted to be a part of his congregation, is himself susceptible to common human impulses?
The staff of the student newspaper at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington, DC is tossing a fit over the principal asserting a prerogative to approve the edition before it goes to print. What's the big deal? This isn't 1990 anymore. Most of the youngsters have blogs and social media profiles to begin with. If these budding pecksniffs don't want the school to have prior authorization as to what the students plan to publish, why can't they skip the school paper altogether? The content will likely have a wide audience online anyway.
In a podcast, it was mentioned that, in one particular prayer group, if someone made a request they were asked if the petition would make one less or more dependent upon God. If believers are to be interrogated to that extent as to the legitimacy of their requests, won't most simply stop making verbalized communal meditative appeals during formalized religious exercises?
A radical homeschooler lamented on a podcast that today's congregations are gypsy-like in the way believers and seekers flow in and out of churches. That translates as one should remain in a congregation irrespective of how much you are abused there or how ill fitted you might be in terms of personality and the available ministry opportunities. You'd think with the way things are nowadays preachers might just be a little more grateful some people showed up if even for a short while.
If Kim Davis as a government employee refuses to issue gay marriage licenses, as they say in the South, “God bless her.” However, her doing so creates no obligation upon Christians in the civil service to implement their own convictions in the exact same manner. Are these ministries insisting that her particular stance ought to be that of all good people in similar positions going to pay the bills of those fired or imprisoned as a result?
Jeb Bush muttering in Spanish is as pathetic as another candidate yammering in Klingon in the hopes of getting Comicon votes.
Now that an Alaskan mountain has been renamed to placate Native Americans, are they going to put down the booze and get off the welfare?
From the concluding episode of “Falling Skies”, the ultimate message of the series is that extraterrestrial invasion will serve as a catalyst for global government. See how that works. I warn of this and I am dismissed as a lunatic. Spielberg repeatedly condition viewers with this message numerous times and he is heralded as a creative genius. From the final scene, ought we to conclude that Tom Mason is the Anti-Christ? Interesting it was a character named “Pope” who, despite himself being profoundly evil, might have been one of the few able to view the protagonist for the threat he would ultimately pose once the alien invasion had been repelled from the planet.
In a homiletical analysis, a pastor compared Kim Davis' imprisonment for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses to the beating received by the Apostles in the book of Acts for preaching the Gospel in defiance of the Sanhedrin. Kim Davis should not have been subjected to imprisonment for refusing to comply with the court order. However, the comparison of these examples of civil disobedience is weak and breaks down to a degree under scrutiny. Foremostly, Kim Davis was employed by the government to execute certain duties as directed. The Apostles were under no such mandate. Secondly, what other manners of conscience should a state official be allowed to impose upon others over which there is a variance of perspective? Should a Jewish or Seventh Day Adventist bureaucrat be allowed to deny permits for pork barbecue and shellfish eateries? Should an adherent of a Christian Identity cult be allowed to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples?
So regarding those that want the Syrian refugees imported to the United States. Will these people be relocated to Chevy Chase, Georgetown, Beverly Hills or the Hamptons?
Interesting. Saudi Arabia won't accept any refugees. So if they won't accept any of their own kind, why is the Western world so obligated?
At the local railway crossing, there is a now a sign that reads “No Train Horn”. Granted. The noise can be disturbing. But that railway was there literally a century before the Hipsters and Beatniks came flooding in, demanding everyone cater to their peculiarities. They want the quaintness of “small town” life (in comparison to the metropolis a few miles away), they should suck it up regarding the train whistle.
NBC anchor Jim Vance insisted that giving a child a trophy that they did not earn is a form of abuse. So does he intend to speak out as forcefully against Affirmative Action and racial quotas? So how many Syrian refugees will be moving into the Kasich household?
Regarding ministers that insist you must pray for them while they are preaching. Aren't they subtly pinning the blame on the pewfillers if the particular sermon is a flop or a dud?
A study claims that parents with four or more children are the happiest. However, as in the case of the Duggars, that does not necessarily mean that the children are any happier or better adjusted than anyone else. It might make for a fascinating study of how many surveyed in this research were adherents of sects where those that verbalize how they really felt would be threatened with ostracism or subjected to some form of chastisement for suggesting tha things might be less than peachy keen in regards to their inner mental or spiritual lives.
Did Obama also invite to the White House the urchin that masticated his toaster pastry into the form of a firearm?
Does President Obama also intend to invite to the White House the Virginia students suspended for wearing confederate flag apparel? Or is it only an act of courage to stand up for your beliefs when you agree with the prevailing elite?
Ann Coulter went overboard in verbalizing in connection with a religion/ethnicity one of the vilest profanities one could probably enunicate. But don't her frustrations exhibit a degree of validity? Why aren't Republican candidates as eager to protect the borders of the United States and the American people as they are those of Israel?
Instructive. The liberal media is in an uproar over Donald Trump failing to assail the accuracy of a statement made at a campaign event by a citizen daring to exercise the First Amendment by questioning the geography of President Obama's advent and religious loyalties. Yet it seems absolutely no journalistic resources have been expended to investigate this vigilant citizen's concern as to whether or not Islamists have organized jihadist training camps within the borders of the United States.
Regarding the National Geographic program “Live Free Or Die”. It is commendable that those depicted have the skills to live without electricity. However, it is a reflection of their own stupidity rather than something commendable regarding their character if these individuals deliberately decide to live without electricity.
In a podcast on the topic of submission to authority, a pastor said that women in the church are under the authority of his wife. Before such a claim is made over the airwaves, shouldn't the discerning listener be provided the details of this church's formalized leadership structure? For as the pastor's wife, her only formal role by default is as that of the pastor's wife. Her only church function is to make sure the pastor is fed, his underpants washed, and that he's carnally satisfied in certain ways. There is not a single Scripture giving that particular woman power over anyone else in that congregation --- either male or female.
During the Pope's visit to Washington, the Obama administration has invited a number of homosexual and transgender activists to the White House. Isn't that akin to inviting Islamic leaders to the White House and serving them pork barbecue?
It was suggested that there is carnal terminology that even married Christian couples should refrain from vocalizing even in the their own bedrooms. If someone wants to be that frigid in terms of their relationship, that's their business. However, there is no reason to spread such hangups to others. Reminds one of the old joke asking “Why don't Baptists do it standing up?” The answer: “It could lead to dancing.” Guess married couples shouldn't see one another without their cloths on either. No wonder a number believed the rumor awhile back about the pastor that wanted to punish those uttering unapproved dialog amidst the ecstasy of carnal passion.
Today, an Islamist front group is calling for Ben Carson to withdraw from the race for the Republican presidential nomination over comments the organization found offensive. If these demands are surrendered to, how long until these jihadist sympathizers call for the forfeiture of the lives of Americans over comments that adherents of this religion find offensive?
Instructive. The liberal media applauds Whoopi Goldberg's remarks that Christians viewing God as the highest authority shouldn't be working in government. The same liberal media is outraged that Ben Carson vocalized a preference that he'd rather not see a Muslim in the White House unless the particular heathen under consideration has renounced Sharia law. How is Carson's perspective any more exclusionary than that held by Hillary Clinton's supporters who are backing that particular candidate because it is widely believed that she doesn't possess a penis?
Do the same media subversives accusing Ben Carson of rejecting the Constitution get as worked up when President Obama blatantly violates the founding document of the United States?
So if we aren't to consider a candidate's underlying faith according to the establishmentarian media (which no one is supposed to admit has a noticeably high percentage of individuals of Hebraic origins), does that mean we would be obligated to elect an adherent of a racialist Christian Identity sect?
Critics are outraged at those of an entrepreneurial inclination deciding to sell their free tickets to the papal processional in New York. But how is that any worse than the Roman Catholic Church creating the impression that it controls access to the means of salvation often through a fee such as in the case of certain indulgences when the Bible clearly states that the only price is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.
Was the student suspended last year for committing narrative dinocide also extended a invitation to the White House and United Nations or was he too White?
If an African immigrant is allowed to collect the offering while wearing brightly printed apparel, would an American be allowed to collect the offering while wearing a Hawaiian shirt? If the response is that to the African the garments that resemble silken sleep wear represent their best even if they have achieved bigshot status in America, would someone from a rural area be allowed to collect the offering while wearing camo? Likewise, would someone that frequented science fiction conventions be allowed to collect the offering while wearing a Starfleet uniform?
Over 700 killed during pilgrimage to Mecca. And how many died during the Pope's visit to Washington? Wonder if Pope Francis even appreciates this aspect of Christianity's superiority? Doesn't Trump realize that those most likely to vote for him most likely watch Fox as their primary broadcast news source? He's certainly not going to get any warm reception from MSNBC correspondents, pundits or loyal viewers. Makes one bristle how Trump might respond to domestic critics should he obtain any real power.
Jumbotrons were erected in Washington, DC so assembled throngs could hear the Pope's address to Congress. Does the Pope intend to condemn this as an expenditure of resources that could have actually alleviated the suffering of the poor? And what about the fossil fuels expended by thousands to catch nothing but a glimpse of a mere human being? Does he intend to speak out against this misdirected admiration? This hypocrisy is rising to near-Duggar levels.
According to Pope Francis, America must embrace immigrants because we can all trace our origins back to foreigners. Since Catholicism was not the original religion of the area of Rome known as the Vatican, by the Pope's logic, isn't he obligated to stand there with his hands underneath his vestments allowing Protestants to waltz on in and set up shop there who have nothing but contempt for the ritual and ecclesiology of the property's caretakers?
Representative Bob Brady pilfered the Pontiff's drinking glass in order to ingest the few remaining sips of water. Imagine what would have happened had the legislator stumbled upon the Pope's discarded toilet paper.
In a public service announcement, Today Show correspondent Al Roker insisted that we should travel by bicycle rather than automobile since it is better for the body. Mind you, he himself must have weighed nearly 300 pounds prior to the surgery that led up to him crapping in his pants while visiting the White House.
In a sermon series on the Book of Genesis, an Evangelical Anglican insisted that the days of creation as elaborated in the text were not so much to be understood literally. Rather, the passage is to be construed as metaphor to help the ignorant Hebrews under the leadership of Moses to understand that all things were created in an orderly fashion. If that is one's hermeneutical approach, doesn't the minister undermine his position when invoking this portion of Scripture to justify exclusive heterosexual marriage? Rather than as a command confining sexual union to male/female relationships, how does one then argue that the narrative of Adam and Eve isn't just a poetic image that carnal companionship should be found in whoever's arms one might happen to fall into?
Given the rise of Russia in Middle Eastern affairs, those maintaining that Gog and Magog in Ezekiel might be a reference to that particular nation aren't quite the buffoons that they seemed to be. The Vatican has clarified that the Pope's meeting with Kentucky clerk Kim Davis should not be construed as endorsement of her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay marriages. Interesting how he didn't mind interjecting himself into the immigration and wealth distribution debates.
A petition is being circulated at George Washington University wanting students to be allowed an opt out of animal dissection. But if they don't want to fulfill that part of the curriculum, shouldn't they select another field of study? Isn't this akin to an English major refusing to read books?
Trump claims Putin has an 80% approval rating in Russia. However, doesn't it take an extraordinary act of courage in Russia to admit publicly that one does not approve of the autocrat?
As to whether or not a President should uphold the Constitution over sharia law, in an interview with Eric Boling of Fox News, Donald Trump seemed to decline comment. He remarked that the argument raised over a position enunciated by Ben Carson is not the billionaire's argument to make. Interesting how he seems compelled to address nearly every other issue under the sun down to and including a fellow candidate's facial features.
New York City museums are being ordered to hand over demographic intelligence on staff members regarding race to municipal authorities if they want to continue to receive public funding. But isn't this the kind of leftwing nonsense these effette art galleries and such support imposing on other sectors of society such as business and religion?
A Florida libertarian senatorial candidate has admitted to sacrificing a goat and drinking the herbivore's blood as part of a religious ritual. As shocking as that sounds, it's probably isn't anymore depraved than what goes on at Bohemian Grove.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 12, 2015
Friday, October 09, 2015
Thursday, October 08, 2015
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Monday, October 05, 2015
New York Times Propagates Mixed Message Regarding Manhood
Published in the 9/27/15 edition of the New York Times is a list titled “27 Ways To Be A Modern Man.”.
A few are just common courtesy such as not scarfing down mouthfuls of popcorn in a movie theater while others are trying to watch the feature presentation.
Others are just a bunch of foo foo nonsense that one would expect from the New York Times.
For example, if I don't want to eat the fatty or charred bits of a steak or if I drink Mountain Dew as a preferred soda, that is my business.
It is, after all, my individual digestive tract.
Another reads, “The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say 'helicopter,' not 'chopper' like some gauche simpleton.”
Frankly, how often does a man concerned about being perceived as one verbalize the word “gauche”?
A number were downright hypocritical and dangerous when taken together.
Principle sixteen reads, “The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.”
Yet principle twenty-five instructs, “The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.”
What about to shoot AND KILL the intruder?
A husband might have a moral obligation to defend his family.
However, he should also be allowed the most technologically effective means to accomplish this task that will likely result in the least amount of physical harm to himself.
There is no reason that a man is obligated to die for some other idiot's moronic principle that has nothing whatsoever to do with the way the world actually exists.
by Frederick Meekins
A few are just common courtesy such as not scarfing down mouthfuls of popcorn in a movie theater while others are trying to watch the feature presentation.
Others are just a bunch of foo foo nonsense that one would expect from the New York Times.
For example, if I don't want to eat the fatty or charred bits of a steak or if I drink Mountain Dew as a preferred soda, that is my business.
It is, after all, my individual digestive tract.
Another reads, “The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say 'helicopter,' not 'chopper' like some gauche simpleton.”
Frankly, how often does a man concerned about being perceived as one verbalize the word “gauche”?
A number were downright hypocritical and dangerous when taken together.
Principle sixteen reads, “The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.”
Yet principle twenty-five instructs, “The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.”
What about to shoot AND KILL the intruder?
A husband might have a moral obligation to defend his family.
However, he should also be allowed the most technologically effective means to accomplish this task that will likely result in the least amount of physical harm to himself.
There is no reason that a man is obligated to die for some other idiot's moronic principle that has nothing whatsoever to do with the way the world actually exists.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 01, 2015
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015
Episcopal Hierarch Threatens To Undermine Immigration Law
The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland Eugene Sutton has posted a pastoral letter titled “Are Not These Our Children?”
The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.
No, they are not “our children”.
They most likely “belong” to Mexico.
The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.
The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized arrangements such adoption and foster care.
The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”
This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”
If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay marriage and ordination as well as abortion?
For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions regarding the treatment of strangers.
The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.
It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.
So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and urinal?
There is a proper way of doing things.
It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.
By Frederick Meekins
The question is in reference to the swarms of illegal minors pouring over the border.
No, they are not “our children”.
They most likely “belong” to Mexico.
The phrase “our children” implies that their continued upkeep is our ongoing responsibility.
The only children you are responsible for are those that you procreate yourself or voluntarily agree to take care of through formalized arrangements such adoption and foster care.
The Bishop answers, “...the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland will take its marching orders from the Bible.”
This ecclesiastical functionary further clarifies, “who we are as Christians who base our ethical actions from the Holy Scriptures that remind us of the sanctity and dignity of every human being.”
If that is the standard that the Episcopal Church intends to rally around as fundamental Christian doctrine, does it intend to renounce gay marriage and ordination as well as abortion?
For these issues are much clearer in divine revelation than how the denomination is deciding to interpret and implement admonitions regarding the treatment of strangers.
The passage emphasized in the pastoral letter is from Matthew 25 which says, “I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
There is nothing in that text demanding you turn over your house without question and allow it to be ruined beyond recognition.
It is an observation of fact that the Episcopalians are one of the denominations that revel in ornamentation and finery.
So is the Bishop a bigot and a snob if he does not invite the unmannered rabble into his cathedral to use the baptismal font as a toilet and urinal?
There is a proper way of doing things.
It is exactly because these individuals are worthy of dignity as human beings made in the image of God that they should be expected to abide by the laws and regulations imposed upon the remainder of the species.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Monday, September 21, 2015
Leftists, Not Trump, Reminiscent Of The Klan Menace
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)