Click On The Headline
Monday, February 06, 2017
Sunday, February 05, 2017
Saturday, February 04, 2017
The Superiority Of Theism Part 5: The Incredulous Nature Of Scientism
Yet despite the complexities and intricacies of both the biological and physical realms, atheistic naturalists continue on in their faith despite all the evidence to the contrary. Whereas Christians and other forms of theism look to deity to smooth over or bridge these aspects of reality that the finite mind struggles with comprehending, unbelievers look to other sources as to the origins of things.
These are none other than time and chance. With no conscious hand guiding the cosmos as posited in theism, everything we see around us today is the result of fortuitous confluences; in other words, by blind random luck over vast eons of time.
Even with vast amounts of time, the atheistic evolutionist must account for how everything is just so to sustain the universe as demonstrated by the Anthropic Constants. Theists point out it defies probability for the universe we experience today to have arisen on its own since such a vast number of fortuitous coincidences to occur in such a manner is not likely.
Rather than admit the need for a God, a number of atheists reach into the conceptual “black hole” and pull out what has to be a last ditch explanation. According to the Multiple Universe Theory, the probability of something happening should not be viewed as a statistical barrier to it occurring since parallel realities have formed where everything that could possibly happen has happened (107-108).
It is time to invoke the Geisler/Turek doctrine of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist”. Isn’t it just easier to admit that God exists?
Admittedly, over the years, Multiple Universe Theory has led to some interesting science fiction such as the episode of Star Trek where Captain Kirk met an evil version of the Enterprise crew with a Mr. Spock that Dr. McCoy admitted looked like a pirate. However, in the end even DC Comics found the concept of divergent parallel realities very confusing with multiplying Batmen, for instance, that writers often yanked readers around by the chain in terms of plotlines by invoking as a defense as to whether or not the Caped Crusader’s famed insignia had a yellow oval around it at the time or not. Editors finally put a stop to the implausibility over two decades ago through the monumental “Crisis On Infinite Earths” miniseries. Its about time those claiming to be grounded in the real world did the same.
Though they attempt to pass themselves off as detached and dispassionate seekers of truth, the proponents of scientism often have less than scientific reasons for undermining the credibility of theism. For example, it has been claimed that when he was asked by Merv Griffin why he believed in Darwinism, famed evolutionist Julian Huxley is said to have responded, “The reason we accepted Darwinism even without proof is because we didn’t want God to interfere with our sexual mores (163).”
I will be the first to admit that more than one Evangelical scholar has cited the recall of D. James Kennedy as the source of this quote (including Geisler and Turek) rather than a more irrefutable reference such as a transcript of the broadcast. As such, academic nitpickers will likely snip at it with their feigned sophistication and pretension as if their own claims don’t already rest on a house of cards.
However, Huxley’s alleged mindset is just as pervasive among evolution's lesser luminaries as well. Ron Carlson, author of classic apologetics texts such as “Fast Facts On False Teaching”, relates an incident where at an after-lecture dinner a biology professor admitted that, while what Carlson had to say made considerable sense, he himself held a position disturbingly similar to what Huxley is said to have revealed on national TV. The professor said, "I mean if Darwinism is true --- there is no God and we all evolved from slimy green algae --- then I can sleep with whomever I want. In Darwinism, there is no moral accountability (163)."
Many will no doubt be shocked by this claim since most academics look like they can barely get dates much less be chronic bed-hoppers though Bertand Russell certainly went through a number of marriages and liaisons for someone looking so disheveled. However, its bluntness is absolutely honest. For if atheism was true and God did not exist, then nothing is right and nothing ultimately wrong.
Geisler and Turek tackle this unsettling reality in the chapter titled “Mother Teressa vs. Hitler” since these two figures epitomize the dichotomies of good and evil to the contemporary popular mind. The authors make the following argument: “(1) Every law has a law giver. (2) There is a Moral Law. (3) Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver (171).”
Concepts such as justice, fairness, and rights are ultimately predicated on the foundation of there being a Law Giver unchanging in His nature. For if there is no consciousness existing above mankind and the institutions of the species, whatever those institutions decide becomes by definition the good and the right. As has been said, democracy with no higher check placed upon it is a group of 100 where 51 men vote to rape 49 women.
The sensitivities of the delicate in this culture that just about goes to ridiculous extremes to curry favor with the self-appointed mouthpieces of certain favored demographics might be shocked by such a statement. However, it is an honest assessment if the world described by atheism was the most accurate.
If there is no intelligence existing above and transcendent to the physio-social realm, the right or rather the operationally convenient becomes whatever those holding power over a given territory say it is. Geisler and Turek highlight a few of these startling implications.
For starters, if there is no divine moral law existing about men and nations, there would be no human rights. In an atheistic world, no authority exists above the government; and since it is the final word, whatever it says is by definition proper. If its leaders want the consent of the governed, that is fine and so is rounding up all the Jews and putting them in gas ovens if that is what authorities think is necessary to secure the survival and prosperity of the nation.
The fact that a wide array of individuals from Rosa Parks to Gandhi to Alexander Solzhenitsyn have spoken out against the shortcomings of the nations and times in which lived they is itself proof that a moral law exists. Figures such as these are remembered largely in history for marshaling reason and and argumentation on behalf of their respective causes rather than armed force.
Geisler and Turek write, "Without a Moral Law, there would be nothing objectively wrong with Christians...forcibly imposing their religion on atheists. There would be nothing wrong with outlawing atheism, confiscating the property of atheists, and giving it to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (181)." These authors conclude, "Unless atheists claim that there is a moral law [that] condones or condemns...then their positions are nothing more than their own subjective preferences (181)."
by Frederick Meekins
Bibliography: Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.”
Friday, February 03, 2017
Thursday, February 02, 2017
Uppity Nun Insists You Aren’t Pro-life Unless You Advocate Income Redistribution
Click On The Headline
Episcopal Subversives Organize To Establish Jihadist Footholds In U.S. Territory
Click On The Headline
Wednesday, February 01, 2017
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Sloppy Exegesis A Gift That Ought To Be Returned
The trick (or perhaps better stated skill as some theological nitpickers might associate the first term with the work of the Devil) in exegeting a Biblical text is deciphering if a particular narrative the circumstances that are of an historical nature pertaining only to that unique incident from those which are a prescription binding upon everyone irrespective of time or geography.
It has been observed that the accounts of the Advent and Nativity stand in stark contrast to the gospel of abortion as advocated by infanticide front groups such Planned Parenthood.
Southern Baptist theologian Russell Moore in his column titled “Joseph of Nazareth vs. Planned Parenthood” attempts to formulate a number of suggestions and proposals for the Christian wanting to apply the spirit of the Christmas story in their own lives.
This effort in itself is not necessarily without merit. For example, Moore suggests adoption as an alternative to the pervasiveness of abortion.
However, where Dr. Moore goes a hair too far is his suggestion insinuating that adoption is somehow an obligation on the part of the believer rather than one way particular families might decide for themselves to live out the implications of the Biblical message in their specific lives. Even more debatable is the invocation of Joseph as a pretext to shame the individual Christian into compliance.
Of particular interest is how the onus of sin is placed upon Christians deciding that taking on the responsibility of someone else's unwanted child is not necessarily for them rather than the ones despising a child to the extent that they are willing to see the child in question murdered.
In his exposition, Dr. Moore rips entire Scriptures from their particular contexts. For example, Moore writes, “In his obedience, Joseph demonstrated what his other son would later call 'pure' and undefiled religion', the kind that cares for the fatherless and abandoned (James 1:27).”
Regarding the children threatened by abortion today as well as the single mother households that Moore's kind of rant invokes in order to coerce all sorts of handouts, technically these children are not necessarily orphans and these WOMENNNN (said with the politically correct emphatic pronunciation often extended to this gender category) are not widows.
These children still have mothers to provide for them and, in most cases, their fathers are still alive and are simply deadbeats that refuse to take care of the lifetime consequence resulting from a few fleeting moments of pleasure. Likewise, to enjoy the sympathy, honor, and protection of which a widow is deserving, a woman needs to have had first been married, a criteria many these days finding themselves already with children have yet to fulfill.
As such, how about first casting blame at those that have actually done something wrong? For when was the last time you heard a good old fashioned hellfire and brimstone sermon directed at both unfit parents?
Criticisms of inept and negligent fatherhood are not all that uncommon. They are in fact the homiletical staple of Father's Day. However, rarely will you hear condemnation of the unfit mother often so enamored with her carefree lifestyle that she is willing to allow the murder of her unborn child. In the noble endeavor to save as many children as possible from pre-natal human butchery as possible, like hostage negotiation at times it might be necessary to sweet talk and stroke the egos of these women threatening infanticide until the child can be rescued from their clutches. However, one is in danger of approaching a conceptual state bordering heresy if one's systematic theology is compromised while engaged in such a tactic.
In his application of Biblical texts, Dr. Moore glosses over where shortcomings of character and behavior ought to be called out at least in generalized terms and cries out he has found these kinds of deficiencies where none in fact actually exist.
For example, the crux of Moore's argument centers around Joseph not abandoning Mary after she was found with child and this humble carpenter taking Mary as his wife and in essence raising Jesus as his own despite Him not being such. However, the invocation of Mary as a categorical imperative to be applied in the case of every other woman in the world does not hold up to closer scrutiny.
Foremost, God appeared to Joseph in a dream to dispel any notions Joseph might have had that Mary found herself in these circumstances as a result of sin. In fact, in regards to this aspect of her virtue, she was far from such blemish and actually selected because of her status as a righteous virgin.
In this day of radical non-judgmentalism, it will be snapped let he that is without sin cast the first stone. That is usually Biblically sound advice. However, nowhere in not casting the first stone is one man obligated to surrender to the humiliation of having to pick up the tab for a baby conceived through the normal carnal means between his fiancée or betrothed and another dude.
Furthermore, why does this non-judgmentalism only apply to those living in outright sin? Dr. Moore certainly doesn't mind getting up in the grill of those that haven't emptied their bank accounts so the libertines can continue to breed wantonly without the consideration of their actions.
If Mary had conceived in such a fashion, Joseph should have kicked her to the curb. Russell Moore writes, “With full legal rights to abandon Mary and her unborn child --- perhaps to a fate worse than death --- Joseph obeyed the Father in becoming a father.” But, to reemphasize, that is because in this instance Mary had done nothing wrong.
From the way that Moore writes, had Joseph followed legal procedure, he would have been exceedingly cruel. But wasn't it because of the seemingly harsh nature of this prospective penalty that in all likelihood that the out of wedlock birthrate among the ancient Israelites in times when that people were living for the most part righteously was nothing in comparison to what it is today?
It must also be asked who was it that set up what looks to early twenty-first century eyes as an excessively judgmental social system. You can't really get all bent out of shape at the ancient Israelites because in many instances they were merely implementing what God had ordered them to under threats of calamity and damnation if they failed to do so until instructed otherwise.
This matter of whether Joseph would keep Mary or set her aside is not the only matter in which Russell Moore has not thought out the implications of what he has said in regards to these issues at hand.
Moore writes, “In a culture captivated by the spirit of Herod, could it be that God is calling our churches to follow the example of Joseph?” In that remark, Dr. Moore articulates the typical anti-male animus that has come to increasingly characterize Christian Evangelicalism.
For those that might not recall, following the visitation of the Magi, Herod flew into a rampage ordering the the murder of male children below two years of age. As a result, Joseph was instructed in a dream to escape with Mary and the Christ Child into the land of Egypt.
From the way Moore flippantly handles the allusion to the narrative, one could come away with the impression that Joseph was the only father or designated male provider to care in all of Bethlehem. Don't you think the other fathers loved their children enough that if they were accustomed to receiving messages via dreams that they would have also packed up their bags and gotten out of town if they had been extended such an opportunity? One cannot very well accuse these fathers of any wrongdoing in regard to Herod's slaughter of the innocents if the general population was extended no warning of the pending assault.
The war against human life throughout the contemporary world is pervasive. Those taking principled stands of whatever form grand or small will be commended by their Father in Heaven. However, in our own zeal for what is right, caution must be taken not to pull the facts of divine revelation from their holy context to create binding parallels that can only be deduced as a result of strained analogies such narratives never intended.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, January 30, 2017
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Christians Shouldn't Lop Off Essential Doctrine To Mollify Secularist Skeptics
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Monday, January 23, 2017
Religious Fanatics Invoke Bible To Justify Chaining Sex Slaves In The Basement
Click On The Headline
The Superiority Of Theism Part 4: Precarious Exacting Complexity
Once the more-thoroughgoing theist establishes the need for a God to get the universe rolling, the conclusions of the teleological argument should be introduced. The argument contends that God not only set the universe in motion but also designed the cosmos in such a way that on average its systems and components function with a degree of efficiently not statistically likely if reality was the product of random chance. Known more commonly as the design argument, the Teleological Proof can be stated formally in the following manner: "1. Every design has a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore the universe had a Designer (95)."
This complexity is evident in the environment in which we find ourselves as well as within ourselves and the creatures we share this environment with as biological organisms. Despite pride in his accomplishments that can veer into arrogance if not kept in check, man is ultimately a delicate creature that can exist only within a narrow continuum of conditions and thrive along only an even smaller range along that scale. The idea that the world was specifically suited so that me might even be able live in such an environment is known as the Anthropic Principle.
In The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, the elder demon Screwtape in dispensing advice to his nephew Wormwood on how to delude his human charge counsels the young devil to dupe his victim into perceiving the ordinariness of the world around him and to avoid using real science. Such knowledge could very easily end up encouraging the lost soul into embracing the Christian faith (110).
The first Anthropic Constant examined by Geisler and Turek is that of oxygen level. Contrary to what is probably popularly believed, though it is what our lungs primarily extract for the purposes of respiration when we breath, the Earth’s atmosphere is only 21% oxygen. If the percentage was a mere four points higher, fires would erupt spontaneously; and if a mere six points lower, human beings would suffocate (98).
To our perceptions, the world seems as broad as the horizon. However, we actually live in a manner not all that different than a fish in a bowl or upon “spaceship earth” as Ray Bradbury termed the globe we travel upon as we careen through space. For the content of the atmosphere is but only one of the constants that must be relatively precise for both life and advanced civilization to exist upon this planet as we know them. Though they are often invoked to frighten the population into embracing policies resting more on assumptions rather than definitive experimental conclusions, the concepts of nuclear winter and global warming help us better comprehend the consequences if the nature of the world were even slightly different.
According to the theory of nuclear winter, the Earth's temperatures would significantly decrease following a nuclear exchange since so much debris would be hurled into the atmosphere. Thus, another Anthropic Constant is atmospheric transparency. Geisler and Turek point out that, if the atmosphere was less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth as this warmth would be reflected back into space. However, if the atmosphere was more transparent, too much solar radiation would make it through, heating things to a level deleterious to life here now as well as bombard us with assorted dangerous forms of energy.
Yet another Anthropic Constant the average person seldom gives thought to is that of the carbon dioxide level. As anyone that follows news and politics knows, former Vice President Al Gore has accumulated a fortune for himself since leaving office warning of the dangers theoretically associated with the gas.
It is conjectured that, should too much carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere, excess heat would not be able to radiate back into space, causing all life on the planet to burn up. But before one goes too far and long for the abolition of all manmade and naturally occurring carbon dioxide, if there was not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, too much heat world flow back into space without enough being retained to sustain life.
Even if the majesty and precision of the world in which we find ourselves is not enough to melt the coldness of the atheist's heart, perhaps their awe for the human creature the humanists among their number are so enamored with may move them to reconsider their hostility towards the Creator. The unbeliever needs to be confronted with nothing less than life itself.
When we gaze out across the vast domains of biology, one of the first things that strikes the thinking individual is the vast variety of life ranging from the tiniest of viruses and bacteria all the way to the most gigantic of whales. In considering the attributes and abilities of each, it is easy to think of some as simple and others as complex. For no matter how much radical zoological egalitarians might want to convince otherwise, there is a vast difference in scope and scale between what the cold virus and a human being are capable of doing.
Since relativism is a beloved philosophy of those that think the universe came about through a hodge-podge, helter-skelter process, it must be pointed out that the categorization of something as a “simple life form” is in reality nothing of the sort. For even the tiniest of microbes and even the most miniscule components that make up our own bodies (both single cells) consist of a complexity that baffles the human imagination that even the most intelligent of scientists are yet to replicate them.
The so-called building block of life is deoxyribonucleic acid, known more commonly as DNA. Of these molecules, Geisler and Turek write, “DNA has a helical structure that looks like a twisted ladder. The sides of the ladder are formed by alternating deoxyribose and phosphate molecules, and the rungs of the ladder consist of a specific order of four nitrogen bases (116)."
However, there is more to this compound than simply being the atomic concrete upon which our scaffolding rests. Contained within the connected nitrogen bases is the genetic blueprint for the particular life form under consideration. Even for an organism as "lowly" as the single-celled amoeba, it is estimated that the information contained within it is the equivalent of 1,000 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica (116). As Geisler and Turek point out, “For Darwinists...then life can be nothing more than chemicals. Life contains a message --- DNA --- that is expressed in chemicals...but those chemicals cannot cause the message anymore than the chemicals in ink and paper can cause the sentence on this page (122).”
Philosophical atheism must not only account for the so-called “simple” cell whose ironically named “genesis” still befuddles mankind’s brightest intellectuals but rather also the more “complex” such as primates, ungulates and cetaceans. This they do through the process that has come to be referred to as evolution.
According to atheistic naturalists, the plethora of life forms in the world today can be traced back to those early amino acid strains and bacteria. These primitive organisms began to accumulate adaptations through interactions with their environment that were passed on largely by the process of natural selection. By natural selection, organisms with the changes granting them an advantage over their less fortuitous counterparts were the ones most likely to reproduce. Eventually, so many mutations and variations would accumulate that various phyla, kingdoms, and species would diverge from biology's original trunk and even the assorted branches of this theoretical "tree of life" (to borrow a term ironically Biblical in its origins).
As evidence for their theory, evolutionists often point to a number of observable changes that seem to indicate that change in organisms is indeed possible over time. For example, any one that has followed medical news over the past few years knows of the dangers of misusing antibiotics in that drug resistant strains of bacteria can result.
In response to this, proponents of creationism will grant that microevolution can occur within a species that can result in an organism's varying characteristics. However, what one ends up with is simply a bacteria with a characteristic that one could argue was already inherent in a certain number of microbes to begin with. Addressing such a reality, Geisler and Turek write, "Unfortunately for Darwinists, genetic limits seem to be built into basic types...Likewise, despite the best efforts of intelligent scientists to manipulate fruit flies, their experiments have never turned out anything but more fruit flies (and usually crippled ones at that) (142)."
by Frederick Meekins
Bibliography: Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. “I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist.”
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Headline Potpourri #94
So how is it that ministries once outspoken against Domionism are now celebrating a Kabbalistic notion that Trump is in the messianic bloodline? A number of rabbis supposedly believe that Trump is in the messianic bloodline. If Christians are obligated to fawn all over such remarks because they were articulated by Jewish religious leaders, does that mean we also ought to lap up their denunciations of Jesus' claims of Messiah since they articulate such hooey as well? If Jewish occultists hint that Trump might be in the Messianic bloodline, doesn't that actually mean the discerning Christian should consider him a candidate for possibly being the Antichrist rather than something to celebrate?
On a non-disclosed social network in response to my column regarding opposition to Christmas in Europe on the part of radical multiculturalists and fanatic Islamists, it was posted, “Why should I care what happens in Sweden?” Firstly, it was my column. As such, MY column is a reflection of what I care about. You, dear reader, have been extended the privilege of the opportunity to ponder what has caught the attention of one of the foremost minds of the twenty-first century. But more importantly, those that categorize themselves as secularist European social democrats are idolized by progressivist American liberals. As such, what transpires there will eventually end up transpiring here. Just because Donald Trump was elected president that does not mean this sort of politically incorrect nonsense has ceased for evermore. At best, America was only granted a brief reprieve during which these threats to faith and freedom will grow even more dangerous as numerous patriotic Americans will obviously be lured into a false sense of quiescence.
Guess one could compose a parody version of the “Where In The World Is Carmen San Diego” with the words reworked referencing the reportedly missing Clinton Foundation executive Eric Braverman.
If alleged Russian interference somehow invalidates the legitimacy of the Trump election, does Soviet involvement invalidate the advances of the Civil Rights Movement?
Bill Clinton lamented that Donald Trump knows how to get angry White males to vote for him. As if Hillary doesn't know how to get WOMENNN that want to hack their babies to pieces to vote for her. And did not President Obama know how to get Black people to vote for him that believe the purpose of government is to give them the largest handout available with the least amount of work on their part?
To atone for holding slaves, Georgetown University plans to extend preferential admissions to the descendants of slaves connected to the institution. But isn't this also punishing other potential students having just as little control over whom their ancestors happened to be?
Leonardo DiCaprio in his propaganda piece broadcast by National Geographic admitted that he has learned what he has about the environment by traveling around the globe. One of his expeditions probably consumes more fossil fuels than the entire life time of commutes by the average American.
On Christmas Day, I saw a gaggle of buzzards eating a dead squirrel on a sidewalk along a suburban street.
So are Trump's judicial appointments going to be the equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations or Trilateral Commission types he has appointed to the foreign and defense policy establishments?
Regarding the "Bombshells" restaurant chain, will those questioning the propriety of dressing skanky broads in skimpy camo be accused of being anti-military or unpatriotic?
Regarding the Rockette making a fuss about the group performing at the Trump inauguration. One does not turn to them for political analysis. One merely watches them to see shapely legs tossed into the air. The ones refusing to dance as ordered should face repercussions similar to the Christian bakers refusing to prepare cakes for gay weddings.
On the day of Kwanza celebrating cooperative economics, instead of receiving a gift, do observers of the sham holiday have something they treasure confiscated and redistributed to someone that did not labor to acquire the disputed item?
Provocatively instructive. Sikhs claim their version of God demands of them a warrior ethic requiring them to carry a ceremonial sidearm and to grow beards. Apparently New York City is now so smitten with them that entire regulations are to be rewritten to accommodate members of the sect as the ideal police officers. White Southerners espousing a very similar ethos from a Conservative Christian perspective even to the point of sporting beards would probably not only be denied a position in the New York City police department but are in fact the very component of the American cultural tapestry that the kinds of elites running NYC endeavor their entire careers to eliminate in part through nearly constant ridicule.
It was said in a sermon that you should not consider the individual that delivers a sermon but rather the content of the sermon. True to a certain extent. However, you ought to consider if a particular sermon topic is being delivered by a particular type of individual in order to manipulate those within earshot of these homiletical formulations. For example, sometimes those in positions of spiritual authority if they treat those under their care poorly often overemphasize submission and deference to leaders in their vocalized admonitions.
If one is going to hold to the position that it is sinful to cancel church Christmas morning so parishioners can instead celebrate with family, isn't it just as wrong to cancel evening services New Year's Day for the same reason?
Senator Chuck Schummer said America cannot afford a Twitter presidency. It has been said that the most dangerous thing to do in Washington is to get between Senator Schummer and a TV camera. That is a reference to the numerous interviews granted by this media junkie of a legislator. So how is government by sound bite appreciably better than government by status update?
A Sermon Audio pastor in a threatening tone warned that, if you don't pray, you won't know peace. The clergy then look dumb founded as to why the average Christian does not view prayer as the opportunity to share concerns with a loving parent but rather a frightening transaction with a mafia gangster or a revenue bureaucrat (these days there really isn't that much of a difference) to get done and over with in the hopes of avoiding overwhelming harm to life and limb.
In a Sermon Audio tirade, Pastor Jason Cooley intoned that those unwilling to drive two hours just to attend his church are “lazy”. Where does it say in Scripture that his is the only congregation that a believer can attend in a 100 miles or thereabouts radius? How do we not know that what the pastor described as laziness was not the preventative hand of the Holy Spirit keeping the person from ending up in a spiritually toxic environment?
Pastor Jason Cooley, in an upload to Sermon Audio, praised an impoverished single mother willing to end up her life to move to his area primarily for the purposes of going to his church. But of course there is no way that situation can possibly end poorly. I am sure Mrs. Cooley (the current one that is) is simply thrilled at this prospect.
At the Golden Globe Awards, Meryl Streep about had a breakdown warning that the kind of bullying that Donald Trump has a tendency to wallow in has a way of filtering down to influence nearly everyone in a bad way. Interesting, though, how media elites insist the violence and especially the promiscuous sex depicted by Hollywood doesn't seem to negatively impact the culture however.
Too bad most of Hollywood is not as interested in exposing the actual abuses of Scientology as these elites are the poor manners of Donald Trump.
At article posted at the Huffington Post is titled “Self-publishing: An Insult To The Written Word”. One could respond the the Huffington Post is pretty much the same thing when it comes to journalism and news analysis.
An article posted at the Gospel Coalition's website suggests it is unacceptable for Christian men to watch female ultimate fighters. If it is acceptable to watch men beat the excrement out of one another, why not allow women to do so? The article elaborates upon a number of the physical differences between men and women. The point is to emphasize that men are usually stronger than women. But if these contests remain between competitors of the same gender, such statistics don't have much bearing on the morality of the mater.
In discussion of female ultimate fighting, Pastor Sean Harris at SermonAudio suggested that Christian men should not watch such events because that would be an endorsement of the lesbian lifestyle pursued by a number of these competitors. Then why, as the pastor of a church, did he allow one of his assistant ministers to invite a male professional wrestler whose gimmick at one time was to portray his character as homosexual to address the student body of the church's day school and then upload the remarks to SermonAudio? If we are to be this vigilant regarding entertainment, aren't you endorsing the professional wrestler lifestyle where those in that particular line of work often experience dramatically reduced lifespans.
In condemnation of the debauchery afflicting professional sports, Pastor Sean Harris suggested that athletes engaged in domestic violence or adulterous relationships should not be mentioned in the Christian home. The question needs to be asked should a similar principle be applied to ministers accused of or abetting similarly egregious shortcomings of character? If so, shouldn't Pastor Harris have not only avoided praise of C.J. Mahaney but also avoided attending in the name of Christian sanctification and separation a conference sponsored by this minister mired in controversy regarding a child sex abuse scandal and the overall mistreatment of believers under Mahaney's pastoral care?
In the attempt to frighten Christian men into not watching female cage fighting, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in a podcast uploaded to SermonAudio said a father cannot watch such competitions and then discourage his daughter from pursuing that profession when she expresses an interest. From the way their criticism was articulated, do these pastors have any problem if their sons decide to pursue a career with no other purpose than to destroy human bodies for mere entertainment? At least in regards to football the bodily injury is the ancillary result of advancing or preventing the ball from moving down field rather than the primary objective.
Pastor Jason Cooley in a SermonAudio homily admonished that we ought to be willing to move halfway around the world just to find an “acceptable church”. He no doubt meant one like the one he pastors in terms of doctrinal peculiarities. If one heeds this advice, don't you run the risk of finding yourself isolated in a cultic situation? This is because Cooley also believes that churches in different areas can only be established by operatives authorized by what he considers another legitimately established church. So if you want to return to your native area having realized religious fanaticism is not for you but your area was not deemed worthy of ecclesiastical colonization, it is doubtful that Rev. Cooley would allow you to depart without condemning you as the vilest of sinners, leaving you up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
A number of performers have allegedly turned down invitations to perform at the Trump Inauguration. In response, Marie Osmond has gone on the record to suggest that it is actually wrong to turn down such a request. The proper response lies somewhere in between. Trump is a president, not royalty and we (at least not yet) not his subjects. An invitation to perform at an inauguration is not a jury duty summons. A free person should not feel forced to attend this event against their will.
On an episode of “Standing For The Truth”, Dave Wager of the ministry Silver Birch Ranch (who often seems to come on the program for the purposes of guilt tripping listeners into donating free labor for the upkeep of his rural compound) said we deserve nothing but punishment from God. That does not mean we deserve contemptible treatment on the part of other human beings or the institutions staffed by them. If disappointment is, as Wager suggests, the result of inappropriate expectations, should assorted professional religionists be perplexed to the point of verbal condemnation if nothing is placed in their perennially outstretched hands (which in Pastor Wager's case seems to consist of duping listeners into coming and scrubbing his toilets without providing the prevailing market wage)?
Tom Selleck now doing reverse mortgage commercials. People no longer falling for similar swill being peddled by Fonzi that Magnum P.I. Had to be brought in in order to dupe viewers?
If Trump's proposal to build the border wall is to be condemned, why is the Great Wall of China heralded as one of the world's historical treasures? Why is China to be celebrated for taking steps to safeguard its culture and territorial integrity but the United States denied similar protections. This must be among the only instances were the multiculturalists don't kowtow to “Asian wisdom”.
By not allowing Rep. John Lewis to walk all over him unchallenged, shouldn't Donald Trump be celebrated for upholding the principle that Black people are full members of the human family that should be treated with no more deference than should be extended any other smartmouth?
Rep. John Lewis has announced that he refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Trump presidency because of alleged Russian meddling in the election. Was he as vociferous regarding the likely Soviet infiltration of the many civil rights organizations Lewis was no doubt allied with during his rise to prominence?
So is Juan Williams not drug addict enough to retain the token leftist agitator's seat on Fox News' “The Five”? Despite his errors in ideology and policy errors, doubt Williams is a pill-popping boozer. Would he be on the show if the other hosts had to help him along the way they are propping up Beckel?
In his good riddance oration, President Obama reiterated that he rejects discrimination against Muslims. It’s those pesky Christians that actually live by Biblical values that he has no qualms about infringing upon the rights of.
Fox News has settled a sexual harassment claim with former network personality Juliet Huddy over advances made on her by broadcaster Bill O’Reilly. One has to wonder if Huddy at the time might have actually liked some of the attention. In coverage of these claims, fuss is made that O’Reilly tried to kiss following a tour of his home after a lunch together. Firstly, this is reason why you don’t let visitors into your home. Well into her 40’s and supposedly a journalist, shouldn’t Huddy have known something was up if she gets invited over to a man’s house and no one else is there especially given O’Reilly’s reputation? Without a witness other than O’Reilly, how do we not know Huddy wasn’t possibly sending mixed signals? From the account, all it sounds like he tried to do it that instance was to kiss her. It’s not like he tossed her on the bed and proceeded to crawl on top of her in order to have his way with her.
It was said on a Christian podcast that marriage is not about love or about having needs met. Since commitment is a choice that one is not obligated to enter into, shouldn’t professional religionists keep their mouths shut if certain people decide such commitments are not for them?
If Trump’s proposed wall is to be condemned, why is the Great Wall of China heralded as one of the world’s historical treasures? Why is China to be celebrated for taking steps to safeguard its culture and territorial integrity but not the United States?
In a discussion on Issues Etc about the unrealistic expectations of marriage, it was said not to expect it to make you happy. If not, then what’s really the point?
Chuck Norris is featured in a United Healthcare commercial. Wonder if he had to go through as much rigmarole to receive compensation for this appearance as a customer of that corporation trying to be reimbursed on a claim for a pair of eye glasses.
The only thing that we should feel bad about regarding the protester that set himself on fire in front of the Trump hotel in Washington, DC is that this deadbeat's medical expenses will probably be picked up by taxpayers.
Fascinating how the skanks the proudest about birthing bastards into the world insistent about not needing a man often have the longest baby registry lists demanding what people are to give them in terms of infant care items. If one is going to wail what a strong WOMANNNN they are, perhaps they ought to by their own junk. If you are in such a position and want a “hands free breast pump”, perhaps you are a little late in your breasts being hands free.
The gay pride student group at Georgetown University plans to provide stuffed animals and therapeutic coloring books in an attempt to prevent a post-inaugural campus meltdown. Shouldn’t a gay pride group be as much a part of the Georgetown student body as a Jack Chick appreciation society.
The propagandists that will no doubt be outraged at the audible bristle in the crowd in response to Schumer’s inagural remarks against political rancor will likely say nothing of the vandalism taking place elsewhere in DC against private property in opposition to the peaceful transfer of power.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)