Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Gay Activist Realizes Christians Shouldn’t Be Compelled To Frost Abominable Buns
Monday, February 01, 2016
Southern Baptist Condemns Trump For Failing To Pander To Women & Minorities
In an op-ed published in the New York Times, this theologian wrote, “Donald J. Trump stands astride the polls in the Republican presidential race... Most illogical is his support from evangelicals and other social conservatives. To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe.”
As not only a graduate of the Southern Baptist Convention's most prestigious seminary but also as a professor at the school as well, shouldn't Dr. Moore know that words mean things? Some possess very precise definitions.
In academic writing courses such as the infamous English 101, one of the first things students learn is to be cautious when applying words such as “all”. For if your opponent can find as few as a single counterexample, they have pretty much derailed your argument.
However, in his fanaticism, Rev. Moore insists that to vote for Donald Trump is to repudiate everything which the Christian professes to believe. But casting a ballot for a limited number of reasons barely touches on any essential Christian doctrine.
Granted, there was one off his rocker Charismatic or holy roller that attempted to make the eschatological case that Trump was the trump to be blown in the Book of Revelation. However, at no time has a Christian holding to an orthodox understanding or interpretation who also supports the Trump candidacy renounced the so-called fundamentals of the Gospel message. These would of course be that Christ as the only begotten Son of God and second member of the divine trinity took on human form being born of a virgin so that He might live the sinless life that we could not in order to die upon the cross and rise from the dead as payment for our sins so that those that might believe in Him could enjoy eternal resurrected life with Him in Heaven.
In his analysis, Rev. Moore raises of number of valid concerns regarding Donald Trump's moral shortcomings and failures. Of Trump's behavior towards women, Moore writes, “His attitude towards women is that of a Bronze Age warlord. He tell us in one of his books that he revels in the fact that he gets to sleep with some of the top women in the world. He has divorced two wives (so far) for other women.”
Such should give the Christian striving to live up to the rigors of Biblical morality cause for concern. However, to categorize Trump's attitude as that of a “Bronze Age warlord” is a bit over the top.
It is probably safe to assume at no time did Donald Trump impose his physical affections upon women that were not receptive to his amorous advances. As a multibillionaire, he'd probably have too much to loose in a post-Anita Hill era where rumors and allegations are too easily believed.
Unless these are rape victims, aren't these wenches as every bit the depraved whoremonger as Donald Trump? Just as Donald Trump prides himself on his carnal conquests, the women he has bestowed the honor of pleasuring him carnally have probably have had their own egos stroked (along with a few other things) by the fact that a man of his wealth and power would extend to them this kind of attention.
As an archetypal capitalist, Trump is probably quite good to these women from a material standpoint. These aren't the aging church biddies with so much hairspray that their beehives or bouffants would likely catch afire should they wander to close to an open flame. Those operating in Trump's circles know what they are getting into when they catch his eye and likely even seek out that kind of attention from the likes of him.
If Dr. Moore is going to condemn Bronze Age mentalities towards women, does he intend to criticize some of the teachings propagated by the likes of the Duggar's? For example, of that family's twenty some children, does Dr. Moore find it strange that not a single one has really attempted a college education? And what about the teaching emanating from the Duggar compound that even a pregnant wife is obligated to physically service her husband anytime he awakens in the middle of the night with an urge or an itch?
Russell Moore further writes, “In the 1990's, some of these social conservatives argued that 'If Bill Clinton's wife can't trust him, neither can we.' If character matters, character matters. Today's evangelicals should ask, 'Whatever happened to our commitment to traditional family values?'.”
In part, that once strong conviction was been undermined by self-styled sophisticates such as Russell Moore positioned higher along the ladder of ecclesastical position that go out of their way to enunciate their contempt upon those seen as mere pewfillers with little purpose other than depositing coins in the collection plate when so ordered. In other columns, Rev. Moore has gone out of his way to express a giddy delight at the demise of so-called “cultural Christianity”, described as an interpretation of the faith more concerned with the preservation of the social norms derived from the faith perhaps at times even more so than the relationship between the individual and the Savior.
However, what Moore has criticized in such cases is apparently not so much activist Christianity. For he certainly has little problem with advancing policies that perpetuate his own perceptions of White guilt bordering on that exhibited among the ranks of the Emergent Church Movement.
Dr. Moore writes, “Mr. Trump incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly 'us” versus 'them' identity politics. When evangelicals should be leading the way on racial reconciliation, as the Bible tells us to, are we really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers...for this angry politician?”
Regarding “protectionist jargon”, would Russell Moore be as giddy at the prospect of foreign labor depressing what are no doubt his own extravagant wages and posh expense accounts? Like many a hillbilly pastor, Russell Moore can no doubt prattle on for hours about how hard he probably toiled in the cotton fields, bayous, or coal mines.
But only in his mid 40's, it is doubtful much dirt has accumulated under his manicured fingernails or callouses formed on his hands. The most profound physical strain Dr. Moore has encountered in his occupational position as of late has probably been an occasional paper cut.
Perhaps we mere pewfillers ought to embrace Dr. Moore's call for stagnate or declining wages. It would mean, after all, fewer dollars that we would be required to be slipped into the collection plate.
From his own actions, Russell Moore's call for racial reconciliation amounts to little more than aligning himself with Evangelical front groups that deep down advocate their own distinct hue of racial separatism at best or ethnosupremacism at worst in that (to put it in a plainspoken manner) despise the White race (or however else you want to describe Caucasoids in this era where whatever flies out of the mouth of someone of that demographic extraction attempting to stand for their particular people or heritage will be coopted in order to indict the enucinator with allegations of hate speech or thought crimes).
For example, Russell Moore sits on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference. Of that, the discerning believer ought to ask a number of questions that in today's climate could result in either losing their position as a Sunday school teacher or deacon and might even lead to their church membership being revoked.
Firstly, would a group of that name open its positions of leadership to individuals advocating a Buchananite foreign or immigration policy? If not, how are these sectarians any better than the ministries that focus upon family values such as abortion or the preservation of heterosexual marriage now condemned as divisive by the religious progressives that applaud ethnic and racialist agitation?
Secondly and perhaps even more importantly, would Russell Moore sit on the board of an organization titled something like the Coalition For Nordic or Teutonic Evangelicals? If not, why should such an organization be any less commendable than one advocating that someone is deserving of special praise, adulation, or accommodation just because they happen to be Hispanic?
Interesting, isn't it, that the Scripture that there is neither Greek nor Jew is only presented for exegetical contemplation when it can be invoked to criticize the tendency of Whites to gravitate towards others of their own particular phenotype? The admonition is conveniently overlooked when certain grievance industry minorities have no problem with judging someone by the color of skin rather than by the content of character.
There are indeed a number of reasons to be concerned regarding a potential Trump Presidency. Without a doubt, this tycoon excels at expressing many of the concerns and frustrations weighing on the hearts and minds of average Americans. However, many of his proposals and solutions seem lacking in the specifics that would be needed to get the country from the state of crisis in which we presently find ourselves to the more solid footing Donald Trump promises in a manner that would adhere to the liberties and procedures of a constitutional republic while minimizing the social disruption that would likely result from a dramatic alteration in governmental policy and approach.
Apparently Russell Moore intends to posture and preen in an attempt to acquire accolades for himself from progressives by heaping condemnation upon those giving what Donald Trump has to say a serious hearing. In his reflection, perhaps Russell Moore ought to as seriously reflect upon the role he himself has played in propagating a milieu where many Americans no longer feel as if they have a place any longer in either this country or even the church.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Retiring Episcopal Hierarch Calls For Communist Upheaval
Given that the apostate wing of Anglicanism isn't exactly known for its apocalyptic millennialism or even a literalist interpretation where these eschatological expectations can only be fulfilled at the Second Advent of Christ's return, such a statement ought to be a cause for concern.
There is little reason to object to the aspiration of everybody being free from want provided they lift a finger of their own to some degree in pursuit of this ideal.
However, without Christ Himself on scene to render such a verdict, who is to say what constitutes “too much”?
Might “too much” be the ostentatious vestments and silly hats many belonging to this retired bishop's particular denomination like to prance about in?
If these functionaries really cared about the equitable distribution of recourses, they could still solemnly fulfill the requirements of their ritual and liturgy in little more than a collared clergy shirt running not more than $50 online.
More importantly, how are those that “don't have enough” necessarily negatively impacted by my having “too much”?
What if one has more simply because one has been a better steward of what one has been blessed?
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Tolerancemongers Outraged Duck Dynasty Clan Welcomes Black Child Into Their Fold
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Unearhtly Beings
A good example of this increasingly-pervasive UFO mythology appeared in an edition of the Prince George’s Journal when one of the columnists exhibited a number of the typical intellectual and spiritual fallacies surrounding this controversial issue. For starters, the columnist assumes the federal government is concealing alien corpses from another planet or knowledge pertaining thereof under lock and key in the deserts of the Southwest.
Our government might be guilty of many things (including psychic warfare according to various reports), but harboring extraterrestrial biological remains is probably not one of them. Naturally, people are going to see strange things in the skies above Roswell and Area 51; it is, after all, where experimental aircraft are tested, many of which in all likelihood do not conform to popular aeronautical configurations.
The philosophical reasoning of the columnist under consideration is even more fuddled than her historical assumptions. The columnist complains about the popular conception that the universe’s non-human inhabitants are diabolical and bent on interstellar domination. But she herself then makes the equally egregious error in assuming any extraterrestrial intelligence must be in a moral sense inherently superior to any human being.
Many of the great Western thinkers of both the classical and Christian traditions contend human beings possess the same nature the world over, operating along an established behavioral continuum. Isn’t it safe to assume that sentient life across the universe would adhere to a similar standard?
Popular science fiction seems to bear this out as television programs in this genre exhibit a wide array of alien psychologies often in the span of a single episode.
On Star Trek alone, Vulcans value the intellect while Klingons revel in bloodshed; the Borg epitomize Communism as they have no rulers yet all are slaves having their individuality sublimated to the prerogatives of the collective. The Bajorans of Deep Space Nine are deeply religious, the shows producers using them to comment on the role of religious faith in light of the Space Age. On Babylon 5, the Vorlons claim to stand for universal order while pursuing their own nefarious agenda. So much for extraterrestrials being superior.
It seems from this small sampling that such creatures would be as complex and varied as the nations and peoples now inhabiting our own world. Star Trek creator Gene Rodenberry through his work seemed to argue humans would actually be the ones providing a sense of balance to galactic affairs with the so-called aliens actually the ones for the most part exhibiting behavioral and philosophical extremes.
It seems the incessant praise of all things alien might just be another attack on the wonders man has accomplished in his few short millennia of existence. The liberals who bash human ignorance in light of the knowledge an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would have to offer turn around and praise the backwards peoples of the Earth such as jungle tribesman and desert nomads.
Applying this heuristic of the “noble savage” (to borrow Rousseau’s term), wouldn’t us simple Earthfolk bring enlightenment to the interplanetary voyagers? Perhaps we simpletons would even persuade them to abandon their vile space-faring technology (which no doubt pollutes the solar winds) for a way of life more in tune with the principles of cosmic sustainability confined to a single planet.
By Frederick Meekins
