Thursday, March 23, 2017
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Book Review Condemned For Promoting Contemplation Beyond Devotional Naval Gazing
In a book review I posted, I wrote, “As God's revelation to mankind, the Bible is complete in itself and capable of equipping the believer for every good work. Thus, with it alone, the Christian has everything that is necessary to learn the essentials of salvation and the wisdom necessary to sail the turbulent seas of life. Yet, unlike many other theological and religious texts, the Bible presents numerous universal truths by addressing concrete historical situations rather than by presenting a set of detached philosophical postulates."
For posting this at a Christian forum, it was said to me in reply, “Again I am drawn to make quite a sad observation of your OP. You seem to think that the focus of the Bible is us, where as it is God the Father`s revelation of His well beloved Son. The whole word of God unveils His character, His ways & His purposes. It is He who is far above all that we need to know & experience, anything less becomes religion. `And beginning at Moses & all the prophets, He (Jesus) expounded to them in ALL the scriptures the things concerning HIMSELF.` (Luke 24: 27) BTW did you notice there is not one mention of CHRIST in your long OP. It was talking of the scriptures, yet NOT ONE mention of our LORD. That speaks volumes as to where the focus & direction is. We rather should be - `looking unto Jesus, the author & finisher of our faith,...` (Heb. 12: 2).”
So in other words, just because I did not say, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus”, like some blathering Hare Krishna in an airport or Dorthy in the Wizard of Oz clicking her heels together in hopes of returning to Kansas, I am just about having the validity of the profession of my faith drawn into question.
For starters, the initial composition was not directly ABOUT Jesus. It was a book review about a text on the New Testament taken from the standpoint as a work of objective literary and religious history.
At no point did I not say that the Bible was not about Jesus.
But if the Scriptures were not written for the benefit of mankind but rather for God to toot His own horn, doesn't that make Him little more than an insufferable egotist?
Jesus did indeed expound upon how the Scriptures testified to Himself. However, that was for OUR benefit.
There comes a point where some are so explicit in their piety that they become a danger to both sound doctrine and clear thought.
For while Jesus is indeed the author and finisher of our faith, how are we to know that beyond a Bible that can be trusted and of solid repute?
If those emphasizing the importance of the Bible in a review of a book about the Bible rather than focusing on Christ in a review of a book that was not about Christology are to be emphatically criticized, the discerning are forced to raise the following observation.
Are those that seem to yammer incessantly incessantly about Jesus as Jesus doing so from a sincere sense of religious devotion or rather because this is what expected if they desire to posture for acceptance by or to acquire position within their particular circle.
For posting in a Christian forum that the Bible as God's revelation to mankind is complete and capable of equipping the believer for every good work and that this divinely inspired anthology often teaches through narrative rather than explicit imperative declaration, I was informed my focus was incorrect.
Instead, that out to be directed towards Jesus rather than the Scripture.
But Jesus really isn't directly here right now.
As such, how can we be sure what He has to say to us apart from the Bible?
Usually, in the case of those claiming to have direct auditory communication with the divine or the numinous, before it's all over with God is telling you to go ahead and bed your neighbor's spouse (and that's in the more respectable cases given the number of ministers these days of confessions both orthodox and heretical that can't seem to keep their hands of teen girls) or to force the congregation to drink the funny smelling fruit punch that burns as it goes down.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, March 17, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Monday, March 13, 2017
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Is Mainstream Media Subtly Advocating Insurrection?
In nature, bees go into such a defensive mode when their property is attacked.
So is the Progressive now prepared to come out in favor of the castle doctrine or stand your ground laws?
More importantly, does the Progressive intend to advocate Americans vigorously standing up to protect their property from government thugs seeking to pillage and loot for a variety of reasons justified by any assortment of bureaucratic legalese?
Published in the table of contents of this very same issue of the Progressive is a picture of the White House with the construction crane in the background from which Greenpeace eco-terrorists unfurled a banner reading “Resist”.
How are those flocking to that call by committing assorted acts of civil disobedience any different than the business owners refusing to provide an assortment of goods and services advancing the cause of gay marriage?
An article in the 3/17 issue of the magazine “In These Times” is titled “Cities Go Rogue: In A Sea Of Red, Blue Enclaves Test Their Power To Rebel”.
Ironically, those applauding the spirit of that article probably support hurling rocks through the car windshields of those that are conservatives articulating contrarian perspectives in such progressivist strongholds.
Interestingly, the illustration accompanying the article consisted of X-Wing fighters from Star Wars with a caption reading how the White House and many statehouses are in the hands of the Dark Side.
Since that is an explicit Star Wars reference, shouldn't it be asked if these propagandists are advocating armed insurrection?
Furthermore, why is such imagery acceptable when liberals are out of power but, if conservatives such as Sarah Palin utilizes the image of a bullseye, they are accused of fomenting violence such as mass school shootings?
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Friday, March 10, 2017
Thursday, March 09, 2017
Wednesday, March 08, 2017
Tuesday, March 07, 2017
Indigenious Culture Expresses Its Disapproval Of Alternative Lifestyles
A horrible crime.
However, it can only be condemned as such from the standpoint of an absolute morality transcending all cultures.
The adherents of multiculturalism are by definition of their own particular worldview are obligated to applaud the act. Click On The Headline
Monday, March 06, 2017
Saturday, March 04, 2017
Thursday, March 02, 2017
Wednesday, March 01, 2017
Are Homeschoolers Obligated To Sell Their Children To Minorities & Foreigners?
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Friday, February 24, 2017
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
McLaren Distorts Hebrew Scriptures To Undermine Border Security
For example, regarding the issue of immigration, Emergent Church theologian Brian McLaren is quoted as saying, “A lot of people don't realize the Bible is a book about immigration. Abraham was an immigrant. Moses was a refugee. The Hebrew scriptures have so much to say about how we should treat immigrants and aliens.”
Given the extent to which McLaren has come out in support of gay marriage, why ought he invoke the Hebrew scripture to justify a position he supports when it is quite obvious he has deliberately tossed aside one of that revelation's most foundational teachings?
If we as twenty-first century believers are to uphold the so-called “Hebrew scriptures” and the cultural milieu flowing from that body of teaching as the ideal to which our own society ought to aspire, perhaps we ought to consider and implement as a totality how the ancient Israelites approached (to borrow a term popular in the sort of postmodern circles those like McLaren love to wallow in) “the Other”.
The Mosaic law did indeed admonish that a degree of hospitality and kindness was to be extended to the alien or stranger that the Hebrews encountered that desired to sojourn in the Land of Israel.
McLaren insists, “So much of Jesus' ministry is defined by his reluctance to play along with the nativist urges of his day.”
Yet while the degrees of separation might no longer be as rigorous now in light of the completion of Christ's work in His death, burial, and resurrection as second member of the triune Godhead, it was Christ Himself as a member of the Triune Godhead that played a role in establishing a number of the Hebrew practices that even those religious conservatives McLaren loves to deride would no longer want to see implemented.
For example, regarding intermarriage with those categorized as foreigners from the perspective of the ancient Hebrews that McLaren apparently is emulating as his ideal, Deuteronomy 7:3 says, “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor shalt his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For thy will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.”
And of these foreigners that came to dwell in Israelite territory, they might have been bestowed a degree of hospitality not known in other cultures of the time.
However, it is doubtful that, if the letter of the Mosaic law had been adhered to, these strangers would have been allowed to continue in their explicitly pagan practices or that the Israelites would have ended up flagellating themselves for existing as a distinct people with their own unique culture and set of customs.
If anything, those wanting to dwell amongst Israel were often required to go through specific rituals to explicitly verify (one might also call the process extreme vetting) that they were in essence without reservation renouncing their former way of life
For example, Deuteronomy 21:11-14 elaborates that of women captured during a war, if an Israelite man wished to marry one of these, he was to shave her head, cut her nails, and to mourn her family for a month before she could be taken as his wife.
Liberals will snap how that seems exceedingly harsh by twenty-first century standards as to border on rape or sexual assault.
Probably so. But in this instance, is it not up to Brian McLaren to explain why he wants to uphold Mosaic law as the ideal upon which to base U.S. immigration policy?
Regarding the literary approach taken in the text, Scripture is believed to teach as much by historical example as by explicit didactic commands.
If so, even though Scripture counsels compassion towards the stranger, it also warns of the dire consequences that result when this is not done from the standpoint of the strength of adhering from morally superior convictions but from a spirit of amalgamative compromise where one god is seen as no different than any other god in the rush for nothing more than a romp in the sack.
Samson's decline can be directly traced to his attraction bordering on the pathological to Philistine women.
Despite serving as the conduit through which numerous warnings promulgated in the Book of Proverbs regarding a variety of strange women, King Solomon himself veered from the path of righteousness in order the placate his numerous heathen brides.
It was in such moments that the Nation of Promise sank to its most debauched depths.
It is doubtful that Ruth celebrated Moabite History Month or did so by demanding that Boaz articulate how wretched he felt for being a Hebrew.
Likewise, it is doubtful Rahab insisted that she be referred to as a Canaanite-Hebrew and that in her presence that events such as the Battle of Jericho were to be recalled only with a downcast face of regret.
God does indeed want Christians to be a beacon of hope in a fallen, troubled, and perishing world.
However, he does not necessarily require us to forsake commonsense to the point where we as individuals and as a distinct world people imperil our own prosperity and very survival in order to do so.
By Frederick Meekins
