Thursday, November 05, 2015
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
Southern Baptists More Condemnatory Of Trick Or Treating Than Inner City Rioting
Of Halloween, theologian Albert Mohler posted on Facebook “Christians
need to consider that there are pagan roots to many of the holidays on
our calendar, but what makes Halloween different is that it alone is a
celebration of paganism and the very attempt to recover in one means or
another those pagan roots.”
It's rather instructive regarding the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Mohler is one of the most influential voices, that among the ranks of the institution's leadership there is louder condemnation of youngsters trick or treating than of the Obama voters and welfare leeches that attempted to burn American cities such as Ferguson and Baltimore to the ground.
An article was published in the Fall 2015 edition of BaptistLife: the Newsjournal of the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network titled in the table of contents as “Loving Our Urban Neighbors”.
Interestingly there were no accompanying articles about loving our rural neighbors or even our trailerpark neighbors.
The article commenced with the following quote: “It's no question the spring riots in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death sparked a national conversation about the rights of people who live in impoverished inner city neighborhoods. Many who took to the streets simply wanted their voices heard, their circumstances recognized, and their hopes and dreams acknowledged, too.”
Later in the article, these ecclesiastical propagandists praised that “..many of the rival gangs had come together, bonding over their shared commitment to protect their city.”
In other words, instead of robbing and killing each other, they decided it was probably best to loot local businesses and threaten any White folks happening to wander into these derelict territories.
In this era, do official Southern Baptist publications go out of their way to argue on behalf of legitimate concerns raised by the Ku Klux Klan, the militia movement, or even the Tea Party?
Liberal readers will respond in a heated froth that how dare anyone insinuate that grievances raised by at least the first two of that disreputable triad be categorized as valid.
Yet these questionable associations are probably no more criminal than the inner city gangs that the Mid-Atlantic Southern Baptist Convention insists upon referencing as if these criminal syndicates were no different than the Chamber of Commerce or the Kiwanis Club.
Wonder if Southern Baptist leadership would be so enthusiastic about this “conversation” if its offices were the ones being pillaged rather than the pharmaceutical counters of the local drugstore.
By Frederick Meekins
It's rather instructive regarding the state of the Southern Baptist Convention, of which Mohler is one of the most influential voices, that among the ranks of the institution's leadership there is louder condemnation of youngsters trick or treating than of the Obama voters and welfare leeches that attempted to burn American cities such as Ferguson and Baltimore to the ground.
An article was published in the Fall 2015 edition of BaptistLife: the Newsjournal of the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network titled in the table of contents as “Loving Our Urban Neighbors”.
Interestingly there were no accompanying articles about loving our rural neighbors or even our trailerpark neighbors.
The article commenced with the following quote: “It's no question the spring riots in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death sparked a national conversation about the rights of people who live in impoverished inner city neighborhoods. Many who took to the streets simply wanted their voices heard, their circumstances recognized, and their hopes and dreams acknowledged, too.”
Later in the article, these ecclesiastical propagandists praised that “..many of the rival gangs had come together, bonding over their shared commitment to protect their city.”
In other words, instead of robbing and killing each other, they decided it was probably best to loot local businesses and threaten any White folks happening to wander into these derelict territories.
In this era, do official Southern Baptist publications go out of their way to argue on behalf of legitimate concerns raised by the Ku Klux Klan, the militia movement, or even the Tea Party?
Liberal readers will respond in a heated froth that how dare anyone insinuate that grievances raised by at least the first two of that disreputable triad be categorized as valid.
Yet these questionable associations are probably no more criminal than the inner city gangs that the Mid-Atlantic Southern Baptist Convention insists upon referencing as if these criminal syndicates were no different than the Chamber of Commerce or the Kiwanis Club.
Wonder if Southern Baptist leadership would be so enthusiastic about this “conversation” if its offices were the ones being pillaged rather than the pharmaceutical counters of the local drugstore.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 03, 2015
Ministries Condemning Halloween Less Than Ideal In Other Areas Of Doctrine & Practice
In an anti-Halloween sermon, a pastoress remarked how if those in
Satanic or Wiccan covens are late for a ritual, they are punished by
demonic entities. Instead of celebrating how the Christian possesses a
degree of freedom not found in spiritually counterfeit systems of
belief, the pastoress lamented lack of similar discipline in the ranks
of the true church. If one wants to be such a ramrod stickler to detail
with everything being done by the book to a fanatical degree with
little room for forgiveness, what is a woman doing being a pastor in the
first place?
It was argued in an anti-Halloween sermon that, if you trick or treat, you are endorsing a particular worldview. As such, if you use a light bulb, does that constitute an endorsement of Thomas Edison's occultic proclivities? Likewise, does driving an automobile endorse Henry Ford's alleged anti-Semitic inclinations?
The latest homiletical trick employed in anti-Halloween sermons seems to center around a proverbial immigrant (usually from Africa) that is profoundly disturbed and disappointed that America would have a celebration characterized by the motifs and symbolism associated with Halloween.
Interestingly, seldom do these accounts tell of an individual so persuaded as to the correctness of their convictions that this immigrant is willing to forsake the delights of steady electricity, clean water, and a reliable food supply in order to return to their less-developed but more innocent homeland.
On the Internet, it seems a number of AWANA clubs are just happening to hold their costume nights in the month of October. A number of them stipulated that the costumes must be non-violent. So that would mean there are a significant number of Biblical characters that a child would be forbidden from dressing as such as King David, Jael's wife, or the bear that ate the children that ridiculed Eli?
In anti-Halloween sermons as to why Christians should have nothing to do with Jack-O-Lanterns, the eponymous Jack is often said to have been eating a turnip when Satan tossed a coal from the fires of Hell to place in the vegetable to use as a torch throughout eternity. If the Christian is to be so worked up to avoid even a hint of associating with these questionable practices, does that mean we Christians should forgo eating turnips?
In a number of sermons, Pastor Jim Staley of Passion For Truth Ministries condemned not only Halloween but Christmas and Easter as well as celebrations unauthorized in Scripture. Therefore, the sincere Christian ought to avoid them in order to maintain their testimony (the blanket excuse one invokes when one wants something to be wrong but can't really articulate a very specific reason as to why). This pastor's suggestion might carry a bit more weight if he wasn't serving prison time for defrauding a group of elderly investors of nearly $3 million. For are not the stipulations against theft and mistreating the elderly more explicit than whether or not a child spends an autumnal evening ritualistically collecting candy around the neighborhood or an early winter one putting a popcorn string around a tree?
If a church condemns Halloween but holds Trunk-Or-Treat, isn't that the equivalent of erecting a pole dancing stage in the church basement to pat yourself on the back how that keeps men out of strip clubs and nudey bars?
In a condemnation of Halloween, a Christian podcaster said that he could not imagine Paul, if the Apostle had children, allowing them to participate in a Christianized version of a pagan festival so that they would not feel left out. But in the Book of Acts, did not Paul appear on the Areopagus where, in his outreach to the Greeks, he appealed to the assembled by referencing the altar to the unknown god and by quoting classical Hellenistic literature to them? Therefore, why can't certain aspects of the Halloween celebration be utilized in a similar manner?
There have probably been more children molested by pastors insisting upon the threat posed by tampered Halloween candy than children harmed by tampered Halloween candy.
By Frederick Meekins
It was argued in an anti-Halloween sermon that, if you trick or treat, you are endorsing a particular worldview. As such, if you use a light bulb, does that constitute an endorsement of Thomas Edison's occultic proclivities? Likewise, does driving an automobile endorse Henry Ford's alleged anti-Semitic inclinations?
The latest homiletical trick employed in anti-Halloween sermons seems to center around a proverbial immigrant (usually from Africa) that is profoundly disturbed and disappointed that America would have a celebration characterized by the motifs and symbolism associated with Halloween.
Interestingly, seldom do these accounts tell of an individual so persuaded as to the correctness of their convictions that this immigrant is willing to forsake the delights of steady electricity, clean water, and a reliable food supply in order to return to their less-developed but more innocent homeland.
On the Internet, it seems a number of AWANA clubs are just happening to hold their costume nights in the month of October. A number of them stipulated that the costumes must be non-violent. So that would mean there are a significant number of Biblical characters that a child would be forbidden from dressing as such as King David, Jael's wife, or the bear that ate the children that ridiculed Eli?
In anti-Halloween sermons as to why Christians should have nothing to do with Jack-O-Lanterns, the eponymous Jack is often said to have been eating a turnip when Satan tossed a coal from the fires of Hell to place in the vegetable to use as a torch throughout eternity. If the Christian is to be so worked up to avoid even a hint of associating with these questionable practices, does that mean we Christians should forgo eating turnips?
In a number of sermons, Pastor Jim Staley of Passion For Truth Ministries condemned not only Halloween but Christmas and Easter as well as celebrations unauthorized in Scripture. Therefore, the sincere Christian ought to avoid them in order to maintain their testimony (the blanket excuse one invokes when one wants something to be wrong but can't really articulate a very specific reason as to why). This pastor's suggestion might carry a bit more weight if he wasn't serving prison time for defrauding a group of elderly investors of nearly $3 million. For are not the stipulations against theft and mistreating the elderly more explicit than whether or not a child spends an autumnal evening ritualistically collecting candy around the neighborhood or an early winter one putting a popcorn string around a tree?
If a church condemns Halloween but holds Trunk-Or-Treat, isn't that the equivalent of erecting a pole dancing stage in the church basement to pat yourself on the back how that keeps men out of strip clubs and nudey bars?
In a condemnation of Halloween, a Christian podcaster said that he could not imagine Paul, if the Apostle had children, allowing them to participate in a Christianized version of a pagan festival so that they would not feel left out. But in the Book of Acts, did not Paul appear on the Areopagus where, in his outreach to the Greeks, he appealed to the assembled by referencing the altar to the unknown god and by quoting classical Hellenistic literature to them? Therefore, why can't certain aspects of the Halloween celebration be utilized in a similar manner?
There have probably been more children molested by pastors insisting upon the threat posed by tampered Halloween candy than children harmed by tampered Halloween candy.
By Frederick Meekins
Will Josh Duggar Fondle Himself While Viewing Sister’s Tongue Sucking Photo?
Jill Duggar’s tongue sucking Instagram photo is still pretty sedate compared to Jim Bob humping his breeding sow on a public golf course in one of the episodes.
Click On The Headline
Pastor Admits Halloween Tirades Are An Attempt To Keep Having Sex With His Wife
Click On The Headline
Monday, November 02, 2015
Cemetery Visitation Condemned As Part Of Halloween Hysteria
In a criticism of Halloween, a pastor condemned a Scandinavian custom
where loved ones visit the graves of the departed on that day to light
candles of remembrance as a form of mourning.
Unless participants are expecting to communicate with the dead through this custom, what passage of Scripture expressly forbids this practice?
The pastor insisted that Christians aren't to celebrate death but rather life.
As proof, he quoted the Scripture that the death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord.
Once again, a Scripture or doctrine has been invoked that has little bearing on the issue at hand in order to perpetuate the fraud of happy face Christianity.
In most instances, families do not visit graves to celebrate that the departed are six feet under.
The grave is visited as a grieving mechanism to honor what the individual meant to you.
Yet, from the impression given by this fanatic pastor, you are just about committing the unpardonable sin if you do anything but blot the existence of the departed loved one from your memory and never mention them ever again.
In Christian teaching, the grave site is also visited in recognition that the human physical form also possess value as we are not Gnostics.
But even more importantly, it is from that particular spot that the interned individual will rise in their glorified state during the Resurrection.
By Frederick Meekins
Unless participants are expecting to communicate with the dead through this custom, what passage of Scripture expressly forbids this practice?
The pastor insisted that Christians aren't to celebrate death but rather life.
As proof, he quoted the Scripture that the death of His saints is precious in the sight of the Lord.
Once again, a Scripture or doctrine has been invoked that has little bearing on the issue at hand in order to perpetuate the fraud of happy face Christianity.
In most instances, families do not visit graves to celebrate that the departed are six feet under.
The grave is visited as a grieving mechanism to honor what the individual meant to you.
Yet, from the impression given by this fanatic pastor, you are just about committing the unpardonable sin if you do anything but blot the existence of the departed loved one from your memory and never mention them ever again.
In Christian teaching, the grave site is also visited in recognition that the human physical form also possess value as we are not Gnostics.
But even more importantly, it is from that particular spot that the interned individual will rise in their glorified state during the Resurrection.
By Frederick Meekins
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)