That's quite a racket some missionaries and evangelists have got. Pretty much go to the same church once every five years or so and essentially preach the same message. I didn't have a problem so much with the content of the message. However, I was profoundly repulsed by the speaker for the second time essentially having those that would stand against the Anti-Christ to come forward, with those remaining in the pews made to look like they were closet devil worshipers. Creeped out by the Jonestown vibe given off by such manipulative histrionics, as the easily controllable dutifully went forward, as with the last time this speaker was at church, I got up and walked out. It was too bad I could not muster the courage to say “Hail Satan!” if that is the kind of impression and suspicion this revivalist seems to employ as a regular part of his homiletical repertoire. If one is to be so concerned about the Anti-Christ, isn't conditioning people to comply with totalitarian authorities without question part of readying the world for that tyrant's takeover?
Regarding this “Who Do You Think You Are” genealogy program. You yourself are not guilty if your ancestors held slaves. Likewise, it says nothing of your own goodness in terms of the race issue if your ancestors were involved with the abolition movement.
If people feel led to walk forward in church to get their lives right with God, they should be encouraged to do so. However, when you rhetorically manipulate a congregation in such a way where those not yielding to the invitation of the message are the ones remaining in the pews, the homilist has crossed a line of propriety. Is the speaker so naive that he does not realize that most are coming forward merely out of a compulsion towards group conformity rather from out of a sense of sincere religious devotion?
Father Jonathan Morris said that discussing the possibility of human/robot marriage on the Greg Gutfeld Show had to be the low point of his career. But shouldn't he consider the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of moral reflection? Just a few years ago, didn't gay marriage seem like a similar kind of impossibility?
On “The Five”, Geraldo claimed Donald Trump's proposal to deport the illegal alien families of American born children would be inhumane. Geraldo then invoked the image of Elian Gonzalez being apprehended by federal agents. Did he get as worked up regarding the Branch Davidian children or the family of Randy Weaver? Does he speak out as vigorously against crimes committed by the illegal aliens?
Establishment shill Dana Perino insisted that Trump's proposal to deport illegal families would be impractical. Had she been in the Poland of the 1940's, she would have probably said the same thing about repelling the Wehrmacht. Should the Red Chinese land troops in her lily White native Wyoming, would she be singing the same tune?
Presidential candidate John Kaisch says it is inhumane to deport illegal alien families. One must presume that there was a time when John Kaisch did not own any particular domiciles that he does now. When he returns home, would it be inhumane for him to repel from his premises someone that has taken up residence during his absence because these holdings were at one time not his? And when Chinese invasion forces one day land on America's shores, will it be inhumane to repel them from our territories as well? While we are at it, maybe Kasich can call for the repeal of the Third Amendment if it is inhumane to deny anyone access to your living quarters. Maybe every American ought to be compelled to take in foreign borders who will proceed to soil the property beyond repair.
Filling in for Mark Levin, Dan Bongino droned on and one about privatizing Social Security. Fine and dandy. But what would be done to protect the elderly from falling into destitution and starvation should the economy tank even further?
When asked if the Clinton server had been wiped, Hillary responded, “What? Like with a cloth or something?” The presidential candidate must have thought that the reporter was inquiring as to Bill's procedure to clean up his genetic residue after he has had his way with the hired help.
Contrary to Greg Gutfeld, prolifers are not morally obligated to allow anchorbabies to remain here. If one country is no better than any other as insisted by the cultural relativists, why can't families remained unified on the other side of the border? Especially in light of how Evangelicals such as Dr. Dobson and Russell Moore attempting to ingratiate themselves with Hispanosupremacist subversives constantly harp the propaganda regarding how family-oriented Mexican culture is.
The Frederick County Council voted to repeal a law that made English the jurisdiction's official language. Supporters applauding this call for linguistic surrender insisted that the legislation authorizing an explicit elocutionary preference sent the wrong message. Apparently the only acceptable message in the postmodern era is that we despise the United States in general and White America in particular to such an extent that we will do everything within our power to bring about our own social demise and eventual cultural destruction.
The children born to illegal aliens violating our borders can be allowed to remain as U.S. citizens. However, it does not follow that the parents of such children should be allowed to remain here. If they desire to remain with the child, they can return with the child to the family's country of origin. If they desire the child to remain in the United States, they may be allowed to surrender the child to a loving American family and sever any future claims to the child.
If governments are prepared to destroy property and ruin lives to punish businesses refusing to comply with the tyranny of sodomite matrimony, why is it an outrage to deport illegal alien families?
On an episode of American Pickers, the itinerant scroungers bartered with someone with Iron Eyes Cody memorabilia. Given that he was Italian rather than American Indian, doesn't that make him the Rachel Dolezal or Shaun King of his day?
A poll asks do you approve of Ted Cruz calling Mitch McConnell a liar on the floor of the Senate? If the shoe fits, why not? One of the reasons the country is in the mess that it is that so many of these politicians will drone on and on within the halls of the legislature employing faux rhetoric such as “My good colleague from the state of such and such.” Then afterwards they will go get liquored up together and even bed the same whore with each other's compliments.
Shouldn't tolerancemongers be even more outraged at Oprah Winfrey for financing an Afrosupremacist scholarship rather than at a White dude attempting to take advantage of these funds by passing himself off as Black? Some will respond that Oprah Winfrey should be allowed to bestow her funds on anyone she desires for the purposes of furthering someone's education. Would those making such broadminded pronouncements in favor of individual liberty maintain that same position if Pat Buchanan endowed a similar scholarship for which only non-Jewish Caucasians would be eligible? And if we are to be psychologically conditioned to reflexively respond that race does not exist, on what grounds one condemn someone for claiming to be something that does not exist?If someone claimed that they were Kryptonian, it's doubtful the story would make it onto the nightly news unless in a deluded state they lept from a tall building in a single bound only to go splat on the concrete below.
Isn't saying one is not going to run a negative campaign itself a statement of negativity?
Why are Americans wanting to send anchor babies back to their family's country of origin meanspirited but not the Mexicans unwilling to open their borders and public treasury to the foreign born.
If convicted of manslaughter, since he still has a penis, will BRUCE Jenner be tossed in the ladies or gents slammer?
If someone is going to publicly comment that they had a good vacation and recommended the destination but weren't going to tell the audience where they had been but would only reveal such in private conversation if asked, that must have been one humdinger of a nudist beach or kinky sex club.
In reference to an upcoming international supper, a pastor remarked that he was tired of spaghetti and meatballs offered during such contrived celebrations. Instead, he insisted upon a real international experience. Does that mean someone will be bringing goat eyeballs, dysentery, and a stomach pump? In encouragement of his request, the pastor remarked how he often brags to others regarding the international nature of his congregation. This is worthy of a few observations. First, isn't to invite parishioners to bring a dish reflective of their heritage and then to badmouth spaghetti from the pulpit a denigration of those of Italian heritage? Secondly, if we are to hold to the principle that individuals are to be judged not by the color of their skin but rather by the content of their character, isn't it as much of a sin for a pastor to brag how international his congregation is as it would be for a minister from the deep south to celebrate that his congregation was all White? Thirdly, does a smattering of families from perhaps three or four other countries constitute an international congregation? For despite a few cultural differences, don't most American Blacks eat nearly the same foods as American Whites? Interesting how American food isn't good enough for a church dinner but American money is certainly demanded for the collection plate.
If a pastor applauds from the pulpit the remarks of Pittsburgh Steeler James Harrison that sometimes doing one's best still isn't good enough for recognition, perhaps the ongoing decline in the offering is apparently a reflection of that universal truth.
If it is improper for a Christian to judge the validity or depth of another Christian's faith on the basis of certain behaviors or actions, why doesn't this principle apply to a woman that wears otherwise modest pants?
If one is going to criticize Christians critical of other Christians, why would one identify quite explicitly with the Christian Independent Fundamentalist movement?
If a White gunman had murdered two Black broadcasters on live TV, wouldn't the horrific deed have been categorized as a hate crime by now?
In light of the broadcasters murdered on live TV, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe observed that there is too much gun violence in America. But as in the case of this particular gunman, the vast majority of these killers have more in common politically with the Governor than with either the NRA or the Tea Party movement.
If the Pope is going to badmouth the United States for widespread use of air conditioning, does he intend to level similar criticism against a Spanish festival where the main event is a massive tomato fight?
In his book “Blinded By Might”, columnist Cal Thomas suggested that funds spent in pursuit of political agendas should instead be directed towards causes more directly related to the Gospel and criticized how direct fund raising appeals are largely negative in tone. Then why is he now shilling for a Media Research Center cruise to the Caribbean? Why are elites such as himself allowed to wallow in ostentatious luxury while they instruct the rest of us how to allocate every spare dime?
Donald Trump is correct that the on air murder of two broadcasters is not about guns. But shouldn't Donald Trump be among the last to call for increased scrutiny of those society deems as mentally imbalanced?
Wanting to continue to make whoopee with his foreign-born wife, Jeb Bush insists that journalists deserve more dignity than what Donald Trump extended to Univision propagandist Jorge Ramos. What should happen now is for someone from a Tea Party news outlet or perhaps even Breitbart to go into a Jeb Bush press conference and to begin heckling or disrupting from the get go to see if they will be treated any better or if what Jeb is enunciating is merely a double standard favoring his fellow Hispanosupremacists.
By utilizing a formula that takes into consideration older poll results to determine who qualifies for a slot in the debate the network is to host, isn't CNN attempting to manipulate results in favor of establishmentarian elites?
A throng of Black Lives Matters malcontents disrupted an address by Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser. At this event, a number of crime fighting initiatives were announced. Among those that sparked these protests were proposals to deploy more police officers on the streets and to search for prohibited firearms in the homes of convicts on parole. This is how this translates for those that adhere to common sense or at least a limited degree of logic. Any other time, these subversives want guns taken away from law abiding citizens. However, according to this civic disruption, firearms apparently ought to remain in the hands of those with criminal records that have proven themselves incapable of handling this constitutional responsibility so that they may continue to victimize innocent citizens.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 31, 2015
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
World Invokes Charleston Massacre To Denigrate The Bill Of Rights
An Associated Press article datelined Beijing described how the world
fell into a state of shocked lamentation over the gun violence and
racism believed to plague the Untied States in light of the horrific
Charleston Church Massacre.
A number of the bewildered questioned how a liberty such as the right to bear arms as enshrined by the Second Amendment could be allowed in the U.S. Constitution. Precisely to serve as a protection and bulwark against the systematic execution of dissidents as has transpired in the People's Republic of China throughout that regime's history.
The Mexican newspaper La Jornada was quoted as saying that the United States has become a “structurally violent state where force is frequently used domestically and internationally to resolve differences.” Mind you, Mexico is a Latin American country where it is not uncommon for narcoterrorists to role decapitated heads out onto disco dance floors in order to intimidate their opponents.
Law enforcement in that corrupt land are little better. Often, there, so-called public safety officers sexually brutalize immigrants from other nations while the leadership of this neighbor to our south lectures us as to why we are to lavish upon the riffraff fleeing that failed state with the proverbial three hots and a cot while they await their single family split-level which they will proceed to stuff to the rafters with half the population of their native village.
And speaking of severed heads, dead beats from the Islamic world also proceeded to weigh in on the Charleston Church shooting as if violence never breaks out in regions where the majority of the population embraces that particular errant religion.
One Indonesian intellectual bemoaned that the tragedy shocked many. But more so than the decapitation and ghastly execution videos perfected by Al Qada and now the organization's ISIS spin off as a propaganda technique?
The article went on to say, “In Britain, the attack reinforced the view that America has too many guns and too many racists” and “the obscene proliferation of guns only magnifies tragedies.”
For you see, the residents of Britain tend to be a bit old fashioned when they want to kill someone for harboring beliefs with which they disagree. They just grab personnel from a nearby military base and knife them along the side of the road as they proceed to videotape a pronouncement drenched in their victim's blood. This must be considered across the pond the epitome of artisinal craftsmanship and civility.
Of the shootings, an interviewed Japanese patent attorney reflected, “Racially motivated killings are simply something the Japanese as a people cannot understand.” As an ethnicity inclined towards economics and efficiency, one supposes so. After all, why outrightly murder someone when they can make perfectly acceptable sex slaves first, a fate inflicted upon numerous Koreans forced to serve as “comfort women”.
Critics will respond that that atrocity was decades ago. Indeed it was. Just as were the shortcomings that assorted minority front groups and agitators continue to harp upon no matter how many set asiides and entitlement programs are lavished upon them.
Of the shooting, a Philippine human rights activist said, “That would be no different from a suicide bomber. For a jihadist says, 'I will be with Allah if I do that.' The other says, 'I am proving white supremacy here'.”
That comparison depends upon how you look at it.
The comparison between the jihadist and mass murderer Dylan Roof is accurate from the standpoint of each of these terrorists having embraced false belief systems inspiring each adherent to perpetrate the vilest of acts violating God's eternal absolutes in the pursuit of a Satanic objective. However, there are also differences that the astute observer of this kind of phenomena must be diligent to point out.
Across America, even those willing to take a stand on behalf of the Confederate flag (despite the almost dictatorial opposition galvanized against this symbol of Southern heritage) are repulsed and sickened by the actions of human pus wad Dylan Roof. If anything, these “rednecks” and “hayseeds” are among the few trodding this earth consistent in their call to apply the death penalty against anyone that takes an innocent human life.
However, things are markedly different in the Muslim world. There, on 9/11, exuberant Palestinians took to the streets in celebration. The way children were given candy to commemorate the event brings to mind the prophecy in the Book of Revelation when gifts will be exchanged to celebrate the Anti-Christ executing the Two Witnesses whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem until they are risen from the dead for all the world to see.
To his credit, one Indonesian intellectual said, “Terrorism and radicalism can appear in every strata of society under various guises and in the name of ethnicity, religion and race.”
Those pulling the trigger or lighting the fuse to harm the body and stoke the initial fear are obviously the most guilty in regards to this profound variety of crime. However, the greater injury inflicted might instead be by those attempting to capitalize on these tragedies to manipulate those freedoms much easier to surrender than they will be to back once the immediate danger has passed.
By Frederick Meekins
A number of the bewildered questioned how a liberty such as the right to bear arms as enshrined by the Second Amendment could be allowed in the U.S. Constitution. Precisely to serve as a protection and bulwark against the systematic execution of dissidents as has transpired in the People's Republic of China throughout that regime's history.
The Mexican newspaper La Jornada was quoted as saying that the United States has become a “structurally violent state where force is frequently used domestically and internationally to resolve differences.” Mind you, Mexico is a Latin American country where it is not uncommon for narcoterrorists to role decapitated heads out onto disco dance floors in order to intimidate their opponents.
Law enforcement in that corrupt land are little better. Often, there, so-called public safety officers sexually brutalize immigrants from other nations while the leadership of this neighbor to our south lectures us as to why we are to lavish upon the riffraff fleeing that failed state with the proverbial three hots and a cot while they await their single family split-level which they will proceed to stuff to the rafters with half the population of their native village.
And speaking of severed heads, dead beats from the Islamic world also proceeded to weigh in on the Charleston Church shooting as if violence never breaks out in regions where the majority of the population embraces that particular errant religion.
One Indonesian intellectual bemoaned that the tragedy shocked many. But more so than the decapitation and ghastly execution videos perfected by Al Qada and now the organization's ISIS spin off as a propaganda technique?
The article went on to say, “In Britain, the attack reinforced the view that America has too many guns and too many racists” and “the obscene proliferation of guns only magnifies tragedies.”
For you see, the residents of Britain tend to be a bit old fashioned when they want to kill someone for harboring beliefs with which they disagree. They just grab personnel from a nearby military base and knife them along the side of the road as they proceed to videotape a pronouncement drenched in their victim's blood. This must be considered across the pond the epitome of artisinal craftsmanship and civility.
Of the shootings, an interviewed Japanese patent attorney reflected, “Racially motivated killings are simply something the Japanese as a people cannot understand.” As an ethnicity inclined towards economics and efficiency, one supposes so. After all, why outrightly murder someone when they can make perfectly acceptable sex slaves first, a fate inflicted upon numerous Koreans forced to serve as “comfort women”.
Critics will respond that that atrocity was decades ago. Indeed it was. Just as were the shortcomings that assorted minority front groups and agitators continue to harp upon no matter how many set asiides and entitlement programs are lavished upon them.
Of the shooting, a Philippine human rights activist said, “That would be no different from a suicide bomber. For a jihadist says, 'I will be with Allah if I do that.' The other says, 'I am proving white supremacy here'.”
That comparison depends upon how you look at it.
The comparison between the jihadist and mass murderer Dylan Roof is accurate from the standpoint of each of these terrorists having embraced false belief systems inspiring each adherent to perpetrate the vilest of acts violating God's eternal absolutes in the pursuit of a Satanic objective. However, there are also differences that the astute observer of this kind of phenomena must be diligent to point out.
Across America, even those willing to take a stand on behalf of the Confederate flag (despite the almost dictatorial opposition galvanized against this symbol of Southern heritage) are repulsed and sickened by the actions of human pus wad Dylan Roof. If anything, these “rednecks” and “hayseeds” are among the few trodding this earth consistent in their call to apply the death penalty against anyone that takes an innocent human life.
However, things are markedly different in the Muslim world. There, on 9/11, exuberant Palestinians took to the streets in celebration. The way children were given candy to commemorate the event brings to mind the prophecy in the Book of Revelation when gifts will be exchanged to celebrate the Anti-Christ executing the Two Witnesses whose bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem until they are risen from the dead for all the world to see.
To his credit, one Indonesian intellectual said, “Terrorism and radicalism can appear in every strata of society under various guises and in the name of ethnicity, religion and race.”
Those pulling the trigger or lighting the fuse to harm the body and stoke the initial fear are obviously the most guilty in regards to this profound variety of crime. However, the greater injury inflicted might instead be by those attempting to capitalize on these tragedies to manipulate those freedoms much easier to surrender than they will be to back once the immediate danger has passed.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Monday, August 24, 2015
Is Peewee League Part Of The Darwinian Struggle?
NFL linebacker James Harrison has confiscated his sons' peewee football league participation trophies.
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
He opposes the idea that someone should be recognized for just showing up.
In Harrison's estimation, special acknowledgment should only be earned for being the best.
Perhaps the winner indeed deserves a larger trophy.
But shouldn't those that just show up be extended some kind of tangible token of encouragement or appreciation?
After all, if the discouraged did not show up, would the league exist long enough to lavish accolades upon the victors?
As justification for his hardline parenting, Harrison invokes his own struggles to achieve success.
According to news reports of this story, he played for a season in NFL Europe and was cut from the Baltimore Ravens before rising to prominence as a Pittsburgh Steeler.
But even when his performance was less than excellent, did not Harrison receive payment for services rendered?
So why can't a participation trophy be thought of in that particular light?
James Harrison apparently has what it takes to rise to the pinnacle of the athletic world.
However, it seems he has not yet reached the level of balance necessary for similar accomplishments in the field of parenting.
Had he allowed his sons to retain the participation trophies, these would have eventually been set aside as at best fondly remembered mementos of childhood.
However, snatched as these now have been, the entire incident will likely become one of those festering resentments that these children will struggle with well into adulthood.
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Saturday, August 22, 2015
Friday, August 21, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Monday, August 17, 2015
Headline Potpourri #77
If Megyn Kelly is so outraged over something Donald Trump said about
women on his network television program, why does she work for Rupert
Murdoch who has allowed media companies under his corporate oversight to
produce some bawdy and demeaning entertainment regarding women over the
years and decades? For the longest time, Married With Children was Fox
Entertainment's signature program.
Regarding these women that Trump is accused of referring to as pigs and dogs, perhaps shouldn't we be told who they are before passing judgment as to the propriety of his remarks?
Filling in for Chris Plant, Steve Malzberg remarked that, because of his debate performance, Rand Paul will only appeal to Rand Paul fanatics. But what about the impression exuded by Chris Christie that would flippantly abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How is it fanatically to point out that certain figures have their hands in both parties or that they are come-latelys to issues a number of the candidates have been fighting against for decades?
It is a valid question. If Donald Trump has run a number of companies into bankruptcy, why should the American voter be more confident in allowing this billionaire to administer the nation's tottering finances?
Too bad elitist culture is not as outraged over the barrage of commercials that constantly push feminine hygiene products (as well as male erectile dysfunction cures while we are at it) in viewers faces as it is over Donald Trump's allusion to feminine hygiene.
Of those sick and tired of Donald Trump constantly harping political correctness when someone dares ask him something that he doesn't like, maybe you now know how the rest of us feel about the excuse and threat of racism beating us over the head all day long.
The power elite are intertwined at the highest levels to the point that the boundaries between government, finance, and media are virtually indistinguishable. That reality makes one wonder if Trump is being opposed not because of the increasingly outrageous things to come out of his mouth but rather for exposing a number of the attitudes that may be allowed to slide by among the social engineering class if you have gobs of money to gloss over your appallingly gruff edges. Just think. Donald Trump at this point can merely shock. Many of the others in the circles he already runs in hold the power to destroy lives.
Too bad the culture is not as outraged over Donald Trump's disregard for private property as his remarks over immigrant vagrants and the female reproductive tract. One would think Donald Trump ought to be considered the perfect candidate. Self-absorption equaling Obama's and a proclivity towards debauchery matching Bill Clinton's.
In regards to Donald Trump. There hasn't been a presidential candidate to drone on about themselves using first person pronouns since, well, President Obama. At least Bob Dole had the decency to refer to himself by his own full name.
Perhaps Trump would be better suited as a shock jock in the tradition of Don Imus rather than in elected office.
Perhaps Rand Paul will muster himself to seize the mantle of blunt spoken populism from Donald Trump.
The concern regarding Chris Christie is to what extent will he invoke September 11th to cover over an appalling variety of Constitutional deprivations.
Donald Trump reminds of George Wallace. There is a great deal of truth to what he says. But upon further reflection, you are probably better off settling for another candidate.
The Justice Department is considering a policy that might place those accused of supporting ISIS in therapy rather than criminal detention. Opponents insist aspiring terrorists deserve harsher punishment. However, this should also raise concerns as it might lower the threshold for taking into custody critics of the Obama regime motivated by what secularist progressives would categorize as extremist political or religious ideologies.
Chuck Schumer is celebrated in his opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Deal as "the most prominent Jewish voice in the Senate". Does the media gush as excitedly when a legislator takes a strong conservative position based upon their Evangelicalism or Catholicism?
On Fox and Friends, Father Jonathan Morris criticized Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that America's tax system ought to be based on a flat tax system inspired by the Biblical notion of the tithe. It was the priest's contention that one should not base governmental policies and laws directly upon Biblical passages. Then on what grounds as a Catholic does he then advocate pro-life activism or even the pandering to immigrants that is beginning to take root in denominations both Protestant and Catholic? If the Bible is to provide little guidance in the sphere of government and society, should the state decide to tax religious property, will this cleric rank among the foremost in applauding such a fiscal decision?
A good laugh is being had that no one has ordered a sandwich full of bologna called “The Trump” at a Washington Area diner. But if someone had money to blow on a restaurant lunch, why would someone waste funds on something as blah and mundane as bologna? At McDonald's, there is a special of double cheeseburger and fries for $2.50. At Burger King, you can often get two chicken sandwiches for $5.00. Both of those meals are better than bologna and probably cheaper than a lunch at a greasy spoon where they will probably toss a fit if you don't leave a tip.
Regarding the chorus “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, how does one know that the sweet expressions on each face are from the presence of the Lord? If the Devil masquerades as an angel of light, what proof do we have that the expression on someone's face isn't demoniacally inspired? Maybe they are holding back a chuckle at a dirty joke that they have recalled. Even more importantly, isn't it dangerous to judge an individual's spiritual state on such a cosmetic basis? What if the person had a scowl because their hemorrhoids were acting up? Shouldn't you just be glad that the person showed up rather than give them guff about their countenance appearing insufficiently Christian?
Praying for someone's physical needs is better than not praying for someone at all. If a congregation is going to be chastised for praying primarily for physical needs, isn't that edging dangerously close to gnosticism? In whether to pray for the physical or the spiritual, does a homiletical dichotomy of one or the other need to be imposed? Can't one pray for the physical along with spiritual empowerment. It's a safe assumption that the pulpiteer poo-pooing physical ailments on a given Sunday likely isn't experiencing any or is secretly as high as a kite.
In a sermon condemning the exaltation of the individual over the group, a pastor lamented the explosion of consumer choice that catered to the satisfaction of particular needs. Would ministers arguing along such lines prefer command economies where bureaucrats instead don't meet any needs at all? In the study of such societies, one notices that such regimes aren't all that big on religious liberty either.
In a sermon, a pastor went on to condemn individualism. Instead, the minister extolled the virtue of conformity. Given that the church the minister belonged to traces its heritage back to the Anabaptist movement, will the pastor endorse the principle that led to the persecution of his spiritual forefathers that the inhabitants of a particular region should all belong to the spiritual confession decided upon by the governing authorities?
An Anglican minister suggested that the success of a church can be measured by comparing the number that attend the worship service with the number participating in small groups. Small groups can be a wonderful ecclesiastical supplement if the topics addressed are of interest to an individual. You might be able to make the case that the individual is compelled by Scripture to attend worship service. However, there really isn't anything demanding a believer attend a small group if there are none that interest a person. Some just aren't inspired by the prospect of going to the dwellings of people that they barely know for no purpose other than spilling one's guts to the group in self-denunciation like in a prisoner of war camp.
On “The Kelly File”, Dana Parino suggested that Republican presidential candidates should meet with the Black Lives Matter movement. While she is at it, will she also counsel consultations with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation?
In sharing his experience regarding a mission's trip to Kenya, a Nazarene pastor badmouthed the quality of fruit available in the United States compared to that available in a tropical nation. I think I'd rather have reliable electricity and indoor plumbing.
If Cuba is good enough to establish diplomatic relations with, shouldn't it be considered good enough for tourists to visit?
Given the number of steps involved, is it really all that much of a putdown that someone had to study all night for a urine test?
A meme with text attributed to Jonathan Edwards reads in part, “If you can preach Hell and the final judgment without lifting your voice and without pleading, you sir, do not believe in Hell.” If we are obligated to profess a predestinarian soteriology so thoroughgoing that there is no room for individual choice in the matter of salvation if we do not want our names smeared as heretics unworthy of basic constitutional rights in the form of the New World Order advocated by certain Calvinist sectarians, what does it matter if we mention Hell with either considerable theatrics or more so in detached blase passing? Not a single individual will end up in a region of the Afterlife other than the one in which he was preselected to be. One does not plead with an individual unless there is the possibility of the individual changing his mind.
The Shriners have banned the Confederate Battle Flag as offensive. Will related Luciferian secret societies also ban their homoerotic initiation rituals as offensive? Some researchers insist that the distinctive headgear of the Shriners known as a fez originates from Muslims dipping their cranial coverings in Christian blood. If nothing else, the fez is brimless so as to facilitate Islamic prayers. Should the secret society ban this form of haberdashery as well?
By Frederick Meekins
Regarding these women that Trump is accused of referring to as pigs and dogs, perhaps shouldn't we be told who they are before passing judgment as to the propriety of his remarks?
Filling in for Chris Plant, Steve Malzberg remarked that, because of his debate performance, Rand Paul will only appeal to Rand Paul fanatics. But what about the impression exuded by Chris Christie that would flippantly abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How is it fanatically to point out that certain figures have their hands in both parties or that they are come-latelys to issues a number of the candidates have been fighting against for decades?
It is a valid question. If Donald Trump has run a number of companies into bankruptcy, why should the American voter be more confident in allowing this billionaire to administer the nation's tottering finances?
Too bad elitist culture is not as outraged over the barrage of commercials that constantly push feminine hygiene products (as well as male erectile dysfunction cures while we are at it) in viewers faces as it is over Donald Trump's allusion to feminine hygiene.
Of those sick and tired of Donald Trump constantly harping political correctness when someone dares ask him something that he doesn't like, maybe you now know how the rest of us feel about the excuse and threat of racism beating us over the head all day long.
The power elite are intertwined at the highest levels to the point that the boundaries between government, finance, and media are virtually indistinguishable. That reality makes one wonder if Trump is being opposed not because of the increasingly outrageous things to come out of his mouth but rather for exposing a number of the attitudes that may be allowed to slide by among the social engineering class if you have gobs of money to gloss over your appallingly gruff edges. Just think. Donald Trump at this point can merely shock. Many of the others in the circles he already runs in hold the power to destroy lives.
Too bad the culture is not as outraged over Donald Trump's disregard for private property as his remarks over immigrant vagrants and the female reproductive tract. One would think Donald Trump ought to be considered the perfect candidate. Self-absorption equaling Obama's and a proclivity towards debauchery matching Bill Clinton's.
In regards to Donald Trump. There hasn't been a presidential candidate to drone on about themselves using first person pronouns since, well, President Obama. At least Bob Dole had the decency to refer to himself by his own full name.
Perhaps Trump would be better suited as a shock jock in the tradition of Don Imus rather than in elected office.
Perhaps Rand Paul will muster himself to seize the mantle of blunt spoken populism from Donald Trump.
The concern regarding Chris Christie is to what extent will he invoke September 11th to cover over an appalling variety of Constitutional deprivations.
Donald Trump reminds of George Wallace. There is a great deal of truth to what he says. But upon further reflection, you are probably better off settling for another candidate.
The Justice Department is considering a policy that might place those accused of supporting ISIS in therapy rather than criminal detention. Opponents insist aspiring terrorists deserve harsher punishment. However, this should also raise concerns as it might lower the threshold for taking into custody critics of the Obama regime motivated by what secularist progressives would categorize as extremist political or religious ideologies.
Chuck Schumer is celebrated in his opposition to the Iranian Nuclear Deal as "the most prominent Jewish voice in the Senate". Does the media gush as excitedly when a legislator takes a strong conservative position based upon their Evangelicalism or Catholicism?
On Fox and Friends, Father Jonathan Morris criticized Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that America's tax system ought to be based on a flat tax system inspired by the Biblical notion of the tithe. It was the priest's contention that one should not base governmental policies and laws directly upon Biblical passages. Then on what grounds as a Catholic does he then advocate pro-life activism or even the pandering to immigrants that is beginning to take root in denominations both Protestant and Catholic? If the Bible is to provide little guidance in the sphere of government and society, should the state decide to tax religious property, will this cleric rank among the foremost in applauding such a fiscal decision?
A good laugh is being had that no one has ordered a sandwich full of bologna called “The Trump” at a Washington Area diner. But if someone had money to blow on a restaurant lunch, why would someone waste funds on something as blah and mundane as bologna? At McDonald's, there is a special of double cheeseburger and fries for $2.50. At Burger King, you can often get two chicken sandwiches for $5.00. Both of those meals are better than bologna and probably cheaper than a lunch at a greasy spoon where they will probably toss a fit if you don't leave a tip.
Regarding the chorus “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, how does one know that the sweet expressions on each face are from the presence of the Lord? If the Devil masquerades as an angel of light, what proof do we have that the expression on someone's face isn't demoniacally inspired? Maybe they are holding back a chuckle at a dirty joke that they have recalled. Even more importantly, isn't it dangerous to judge an individual's spiritual state on such a cosmetic basis? What if the person had a scowl because their hemorrhoids were acting up? Shouldn't you just be glad that the person showed up rather than give them guff about their countenance appearing insufficiently Christian?
Praying for someone's physical needs is better than not praying for someone at all. If a congregation is going to be chastised for praying primarily for physical needs, isn't that edging dangerously close to gnosticism? In whether to pray for the physical or the spiritual, does a homiletical dichotomy of one or the other need to be imposed? Can't one pray for the physical along with spiritual empowerment. It's a safe assumption that the pulpiteer poo-pooing physical ailments on a given Sunday likely isn't experiencing any or is secretly as high as a kite.
In a sermon condemning the exaltation of the individual over the group, a pastor lamented the explosion of consumer choice that catered to the satisfaction of particular needs. Would ministers arguing along such lines prefer command economies where bureaucrats instead don't meet any needs at all? In the study of such societies, one notices that such regimes aren't all that big on religious liberty either.
In a sermon, a pastor went on to condemn individualism. Instead, the minister extolled the virtue of conformity. Given that the church the minister belonged to traces its heritage back to the Anabaptist movement, will the pastor endorse the principle that led to the persecution of his spiritual forefathers that the inhabitants of a particular region should all belong to the spiritual confession decided upon by the governing authorities?
An Anglican minister suggested that the success of a church can be measured by comparing the number that attend the worship service with the number participating in small groups. Small groups can be a wonderful ecclesiastical supplement if the topics addressed are of interest to an individual. You might be able to make the case that the individual is compelled by Scripture to attend worship service. However, there really isn't anything demanding a believer attend a small group if there are none that interest a person. Some just aren't inspired by the prospect of going to the dwellings of people that they barely know for no purpose other than spilling one's guts to the group in self-denunciation like in a prisoner of war camp.
On “The Kelly File”, Dana Parino suggested that Republican presidential candidates should meet with the Black Lives Matter movement. While she is at it, will she also counsel consultations with the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nation?
In sharing his experience regarding a mission's trip to Kenya, a Nazarene pastor badmouthed the quality of fruit available in the United States compared to that available in a tropical nation. I think I'd rather have reliable electricity and indoor plumbing.
If Cuba is good enough to establish diplomatic relations with, shouldn't it be considered good enough for tourists to visit?
Given the number of steps involved, is it really all that much of a putdown that someone had to study all night for a urine test?
A meme with text attributed to Jonathan Edwards reads in part, “If you can preach Hell and the final judgment without lifting your voice and without pleading, you sir, do not believe in Hell.” If we are obligated to profess a predestinarian soteriology so thoroughgoing that there is no room for individual choice in the matter of salvation if we do not want our names smeared as heretics unworthy of basic constitutional rights in the form of the New World Order advocated by certain Calvinist sectarians, what does it matter if we mention Hell with either considerable theatrics or more so in detached blase passing? Not a single individual will end up in a region of the Afterlife other than the one in which he was preselected to be. One does not plead with an individual unless there is the possibility of the individual changing his mind.
The Shriners have banned the Confederate Battle Flag as offensive. Will related Luciferian secret societies also ban their homoerotic initiation rituals as offensive? Some researchers insist that the distinctive headgear of the Shriners known as a fez originates from Muslims dipping their cranial coverings in Christian blood. If nothing else, the fez is brimless so as to facilitate Islamic prayers. Should the secret society ban this form of haberdashery as well?
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Should Christians Avoid Apostate Literature In All Instances?
In discussing how Christians grow over time, an Evangelical broadcaster
remarked that in going through some old books he came across a couple of
titles by Tony Campolo he had read about fifteen years ago.
The broadcaster confessed that, given what he knows of Campolo and the Word of God today, he would probably no longer read anything by Campolo.
Most Christians grounded in the Word of God and sound theology realize that Campolo is a borderline apostate if he hasn't already crossed over the line altogether.
If someone wants to avoid Campolo's works, so be it.
That's one's right in a free society.
However, such a proclamation in such a manner as to create the impression that no one ought to read these kinds of works under any circumstances if they want to retain good standing as a member of the broader conservative Evangelical community goes a bit overboard.
Regarding religious leftists such as Tony Campolo, should one decide to read works by such an author, the discerning must remain cautious to subtle error that says as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.
In other words, sometimes you have got to read between the lines.
But unless we ourselves conduct our own research or, perhaps more importantly are encouraged ourselves to do so, how can we be sure that those stymieing individual reflection and curiosity aren't simply out to control us for their own assorted ends?
The call to be like the Bereans requires nothing short of such sanctified suspicion on our own parts.
By Frederick Meekins
The broadcaster confessed that, given what he knows of Campolo and the Word of God today, he would probably no longer read anything by Campolo.
Most Christians grounded in the Word of God and sound theology realize that Campolo is a borderline apostate if he hasn't already crossed over the line altogether.
If someone wants to avoid Campolo's works, so be it.
That's one's right in a free society.
However, such a proclamation in such a manner as to create the impression that no one ought to read these kinds of works under any circumstances if they want to retain good standing as a member of the broader conservative Evangelical community goes a bit overboard.
Regarding religious leftists such as Tony Campolo, should one decide to read works by such an author, the discerning must remain cautious to subtle error that says as much by what it does not say as by what it does say.
In other words, sometimes you have got to read between the lines.
But unless we ourselves conduct our own research or, perhaps more importantly are encouraged ourselves to do so, how can we be sure that those stymieing individual reflection and curiosity aren't simply out to control us for their own assorted ends?
The call to be like the Bereans requires nothing short of such sanctified suspicion on our own parts.
By Frederick Meekins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)