Source: otherwisetrading.co.uk via Frederick on Pinterest
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Monday, March 04, 2013
Eagerness For Martyrdom More A Sign Of Instability Rather Than Spiritual Maturity
In a sermon, a pastor said that, if he dies in bed from something such as cancer rather than being murdered for the cause of Christ, he would be disappointed.
While one should be willing to die for the name of Christ should such circumstances ever arise, isn’t it a symptom of an unbalanced fanaticism to eagerly desire such a thing?
Did not Christ also decree that He came so that we might have life and to have it more abundantly?
It is not the place of mere mortals to fully know why we are taken from this world in the ways that each of us ultimately are.
Since very few partings transpire free of some manner of pain or suffering, who are we to say that the passing after what in human terms seems like a long life trodding this earth is not also a gift from above and who are we to sneer down our noses at such a providence extended by the Almighty?
Isn't the dignity or acceptance one displays in the face of what will be life’s most terrifying existential challenge as much a mark of Christian character irrespective of whether the Reaper awaits us below the hangman’s platform or outside a hospital room?
by Frederick Meekins
If Catholics would speak out against prominent Evangelicals that would have no problem being seen at public forums with Jack Chick or Ian Paisley, shouldn't Protestant speak out against Catholics at the highest levels not blinking twice about sharing speakers' platforms with known Communist sympathizers?
As an advocate of global wealth redistribution, if elected to the Papacy, will Cardinal Peter Turkson divest the Vatican of its ostentatious riches or merely compel you to abandon your average middle class lifestyle on behalf of Third Worlders that either refuse to lift a finger on behalf of their own betterment or can’t keep their legs together in terms of the number of children they continue to produce despite living in squalor where they can’t possibly provide for such progeny properly?
Saturday, March 02, 2013
Woodsy On The Rampage: The Ecology Of Radical Environmentalism
In this era of hyperterrorism where every Tom, Dick, and Abdul with a grudge against society because of a rotten childhood blows up a bus or shoots up a post office, many are not too concerned about the activities of other outcasts striving to save the spotted owl or kangaroo rat with methods outside accepted political procedure since the most violent terrorists create the more pressing security concerns. However, simply because radical environmentalists aren’t known for eliminating their opposition with explosives, that does not mean that this movement challenging many of the presuppositions of modern technocratic society is not worthy of our attention.
The radical environmental movement began in opposition to the growing establishmentarian attitude of mainstream environmental groups such as the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton League, the Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Parks & Conservation Association, and the Environmental Policy Institute who are collectively referred to as “the Group of Ten (Scarce, 16). These organizations take a relatively pragmatic stand towards the preservation of the nation’s environmental treasures. For example, some of these mainstream groups agreed to let the government construct Glenn Canyon Dam in Arizona, and in other instances, these groups have been modest in the amount they demand be set aside for preservation.
This sense of compromise with government authorities in order to preserve at least a modicum of the nation’s natural resources has created a rift of ambiguity between the mainstream and the more radical environmentalist groups. On the one hand, radical environmentalists oppose compromise in the name of the environment on philosophical grounds. However, their own unreasonable demands are also part of an orchestrated strategy designed to make public officials more cooperative with the demands made by groups like the Sierra Club whose demands look reasonable in comparison to the ultimatums made by the radicals.
However, the radical environmental movement is more than a marketing ploy designed to win demands from government officials. It is also a school of thought drawing inspiration from various philosophical sources. One of the main philosophical schools that radical environmentalists draw upon is known as "Deep Ecology". According to this set of ideas, the conservation policies pursued by more mainstream environmental groups are incorrect because man is still used as the primary measure of all things, at least when it comes to environmental protection (Manes, 56). To the Deep Ecologist, every natural thing is on equal footing. Human beings are no better than moss or a pine cone.
Any assertion to the contrary is labeled anthropocentrism, which is an offense as allegedly as vile as racism. While this philosophy may make one feel neighborly towards the chipmunks down at the park, this way of thinking is fraught with a number of dangers. For example, it was asserted in one media account of a couple attacked by a rabid cougar, it was commented that no one had the right to kill the beast even though one of the mauled individuals lost several fingers in the attack. Needless to say, the person making the comment had never faced similar circumstances.
Coupled with this bio or eco-centrism is a disdain for technological development. Following in the footsteps of Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man, radical environmentalists believe that technology allows man to dominate nature (Manes, 26). As such, he is dehumanized by his own inventions as existence is reduced to production and consumption. Never mind the fact that it is modern technology that allows individuals feeling this way to have the leisure time to devise and disseminates these thoughts. If dependence on technology can be reversed, it is thought, man will be able to reestablish his proper place in the natural world.
However, there is more to this worldview than abstract thinking and philosophical posturing. Being a physically active lot as many of the movement's adherents are avid outdoorsmen, much of the movement's theoretical underpinnings are based upon action and deed.
The primary action oriented text inspiring radical environmentalism is The Monkeywrench Gang by Edward Abbey who considered himself a "literary bum" destined to stand against the technological and industrial forces simultaneously arrayed against human freedom and environmental preservation (Scarce, 240). The Monkeywrench Gang is a novel about a group of live-hard outdoorsmen who roam the countryside in an old van performing various acts of ecological sabotage such a burning billboards, driving bulldozers over cliffs, pulling up survey stakes, and yanking out railroad tracks. The sequel to The Monkeywrench Gang, written shortly before Abbey's death, is Hayduke Lives! in which the gang reunites for one more spate of neo-Luddite shenanigans.
While these works help define the action-oriented aspects of radical environmentalism in a highly entertaining format, they also expose the inconsistencies at the heart of the movement. For example, throughout The Monkeywrench Gang, the characters rail against highways while tossing empty beer cans on to the side of the road; and while claiming to be at one with nature, the characters long for the showers and coffee at the Holiday Inn (Scarce, 240).
Another book with widespread popularity among radical environmentalists is Ecodefense: A Handbook For The Militant Defense Of Earth. Ecodefense is a how to on radical environmentalist tactics. In a sense, it is comparable to The Anarchist's Cookbook as it elaborates how to perpetrate mayhem by decommissioning bulldozers, pulling up survey stakes, and spiking trees as well as other tactics designed to stop the hordes of civilization seeking to pillage the wilderness (Scarce, 74).
Written by Earth First! founder Dave Foreman, Ecodefense was an immediate success with it being read by young environmental radicals from around the world. The book became so influential that the supervisor of the Williamette National Forest in Oregon testified in a Congressional hearing that he would consider closing the area under his jurisdiction if the tactics described in the book were carried out within the forest's boundaries (Manes, 83). And on a lighter note, "Ecodefense" was published by a firm called "Nedd Ludd Books" named in honor of the 19th century worker who participated in a campaign to destroy various forms of factory machinery.
The group that probably first and foremost put the principles embodied by this ideology into practice was Earth First!. The exclamation point is part of the groups name and not a grammatical construct symbolizing this author’s enthusiasm for the organization
Earth First! was founded by an assortment of individuals coming from a variety of backgrounds. Dave Foreman, who would later go on to write the aforementioned “Ecodefense”, started off surprisingly as a Republican and member of the Young Americans For Freedom as a supporter of Barry Goldwater. Foreman joined the Marines, but eventually went AWOL. He worked for a time for the Wilderness Society, only to leave the group disenchanted with what he perceived as the organization's moderation. Howe Wolke, who was considered by some as somewhat more of a libertarian, was a forestry student, bouncer, and oilfield hand, came to Earth First! from Friends of the Earth where he worked as a field representative attending public meetings and handling press relations. He quit that organization because that organization cut his $75 per month salary (Manes, 66). Mike Roselle was a radical involved with Abbie Hoffman's and Jerry Rubin's Yippy counterculture organization who himself later left that group because of its perceived political opportunism in order to establish the "Zippies". Other founding members of Earth First! included Bart Kochler, a former Wyoming Wilderness Society staff member with a knack for political organization as well as song writing, and Ron Kezar, a former seasonal U.S. Park Service employee who was trained as a librarian and an expert on the history of American military strategy (Manes, 68).
Groups such as Earth First! believe that the earth will be saved via anarchy which will topple modern industrialized technocratic civilization. In such a context, anarchy is defined as, "...the maximum possible dispersal of power; political, economic...and military power. An anarchist society would consist of a voluntary association of self-reliant self-sustaining autonomous communities (Scarce, 88)."
However, within the ranks of Earth First! there was a rift just how much anti-Americanism that the notion entailed. One faction led by group founder Dave Foreman held that anarchy was merely a means to an end which was the preservation of the biosphere. As such, flag burnings, an act of defiance preferred by some in the group, was seen as uncalled for (Scarce, 88). The other side of the dispute was led by ecofeminists, who combined the struggle against environmental degradation with the struggle against the patriarchy, and a splinter group originally called "Stumps Suck" but which ultimately settled on the name "Live Wild Or Die". Both of these submovements used their Earth First! activism as a broader platform to attack the wider consumer culture (Manes, 103).
Though often classified as "soft-core terrorist groups" by the FBI, many of the deeds committed by these kinds of organizations often border more on the juvenile than on the outright dangerous though still unquestionably criminal. Since many of these groups claim to ascribe to a code of nonviolent ethics based upon their own interpretation of Gandhian principles, many of these groups have turned to alternative forms of political behavior.
For example, one group calling itself the Revolutionary Ecoterrorist Pie Brigade tossed pies at timber industry spokesman at a convention. Another group put cow patties atop a Forest Service office building’s air conditioners in Washington State’s Okanogan National Forest (Manes, 104). And yet a another Earth First! splinter group called the Gross Action Group staged an event referred to as a “puke in” at a Seattle shopping center in 1988 when the activists ingested a vomit-inducing drug in order to shock holiday shoppers into realizing the disgusting nature of American consumerism, no doubt prompting sales to temporarily dip at the food court (Scarce, 89).
Despite these shenanigans, not all forms of radical environmental activism can be dismissed as good natured frolicking in the North Woods. Some of the tactics are downright life threatening.
One of the most common and dangerous activities engaged in by radical environmentalist groups is tree spiking where nails are driven into trees often slated for sale from national forests into private hands. The point of such an exercise is to discourage timber companies from extracting the wood because of the damage the nails could do to expensive equipment and not the mention the employees who would most likely be injured by flying nails, shattered equipment, or both.
To justify these actions in light of their “nonviolent” ethics, tree spikers often inform forestry authorities of their activities prior to harvest in order to avoid human injury. A prominent tree spiking incident occurred in May 1987 when a mill worker was injured by a band saw shattered by a tampered tree. Timber authorities roundly condemned Earth First! who denied involvement. Surprisingly, the injured mill worker publicly stated his support for Earth’s First!’s goals, and in an even bigger twist of events, it was learned that Earth First! had not carried out this particular tree spiking as has been concluded earlier. The perpetrator was actually an irate libertarian worried that timber companies logging near his property would want his land next (Manes, 11).
Despite this record, fears on the part of law enforcement are not without justification. Dave Foreman, one of Earth First!’s founders, did say, “It’s time for a warrior society to rise out of the Earth and throw itself in front of the juggernaut of destruction, to be antibodies against the human pox that is ravaging this precious beautiful planet (Manes, 86)." Pretty strong words, especially considering the fact than many in the group, while pro-environment, aren’t necessarily vegetarian or against hunting, with human beings being just another string in nature’s web no more important or distinct from any other animal.
Radical environmentalists have proven that they themselves are not above the use of violence. For example, one group calling itself Direct Action blew up a British Columbia electrical substation in 1982. A radical Greenpeace splinter group calling itself the Sea Shepherds has no qualms about ramming what the organization considers pirate whaling ships on the high seas (Manes, 86). Other groups get a kick from setting bulldozers and related construction equipment on fire.
The future of radical environmentalism and its accompanying deeds of quasi-violence and para-terrorism are the subjects of intense debate. Analysts are divided over the issue.
One perspective concludes that the violence will only get worse. A 1990 report released by the Heritage Foundation titled "Eco-Terrorism: The Dangerous Fringes Of The Environmental Movement" argues that eventually innocent people will likely be hurt by the fanaticism of this ideology that prefers moss over man (Scarce, 265).
The other side of this debate contends that, if such violent actions were taken, they would be counter productive as many law abiding citizens view environmental issues as quality of life issues. For example, residents of both Pennsylvania and Virginia have at times thumbed their noses at assorted development projects that would impact the historical and cultural distinctiveness of geographical treasures such as Lancaster Dutch Country and George Washington's boyhood home. Only time will tell if the true goals of radical environmentalism are simply about raising public awareness or about tossing a wrench into the gears of the technological society they claim to loathe for the purposes of tearing it down.
by Frederick Meekins
Bibliography
Manes, Christopher. "Green Rage: Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization." Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1990.
Scarce, Rik. "Eco-Warriors: Understanding The Radical Environmental Movement." Chicago: The Noble Press, Inc. 1990.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Wonder how long Zero Hour will be on the air. It steps on too many toes regarding secret societies and the Apocalypse. Wonder if the young lad with the pet locusts is suppose to be the Anti-Christ as a child and is he a younger version of the main character that doesn't seem to yet realize he is the result of Nazi cloning experiments.
Will Frau Obama Dictate The Menu Of Your Next Church Picnic?
She's certainly enough to make you lose your appetite.
Click on the headline.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Bill O'Reilly was certainly combative with Roma Downy regarding the miniseries on the Bible she has produced for the History Channel. O'Reilly kept badgering her about Adam, Eve, and the Flood as being nothing more than allegorical. If these are merely stories, on what grounds does O'Reilly have that the accounts of Christ, the Resurrection, and future reward in the After Life aren't allegorical as well or is perhaps that is what he is banking on?
Human Events has decided to cease print operations. My grandmother use to have a saying: "As modern as tomorrow morning's newspaper." Sadly, it seems that witty bit of rhetoric is no longer sufficiently modern. Will likely come a day when a generation won't even know what a newspaper is. At least in consolation, those of us that the traditional journalistic establishments wouldn't give the time of day to in terms of providing content can now ourselves cultivate our own media outposts in terms of blogs and other forms of social media. Those of us that do so now from a Conservative perspective take a moment to recall respectfully the inspiration each of us were provided by this stalwart publication.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Two female California state legislators are outraged over Seth MacFarlane’s Oscar performance. It is claimed his comments regarding nude scenes were degrading to women. Do these public officials intend to raise such criticism against nude scenes in general as well as MacFarlane’s other bawdy material. Did they say anything about “Family Guy” mocking Sarah Palin’s disabled child?
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Multiculturalism Deludes Christian Intellectual
On Facebook, a prominent Christian intellectual announced they were going to give a lecture contrasting the economic and cultural vitality of Asia with the economic and cultural degeneration of America.
Doesn't Christianity teach not to measure the spiritual health of an individual or society in the abundance of things?
That's at least what we are constantly reminded when the missionaries speak not so much as a way to encourage aide to the less fortunate but rather under the guise of bashing the American way of life.
Isn't this claim of a vital Asia made more so because this is the way assorted elites are conditioning us to think?
Asian culture is such a wondrous thing.
Recently, a Lebanese Muslim raped his sister and, when she got pregnant, he murdered her for disgracing the family.
Things are little better in other nations across the continent now being upheld as the ideal.
Female children are literally tossed aside unwanted in India and China.
And in other nation’s such as Thailand, others are sold into forced prostitution.
But I guess that’s also the fault of the average American that‘s never even set foot outside the United States.
Arguing that the good Christian does not celebrate birthdays because John The Baptist was beheaded as a result of shenanigans that went on at Herod’s birthday party is akin to suggesting that the ideal way for a guy to get a girl that won’t otherwise give him the time of day is to go ahead and rape her because of the statute set forth in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Some of these pastors thinking more should be taken away from many Old Testament narratives other than the history of Israel and Christ’s earthly lineage often exegete proscriptively more than what can be justified by the passage. For example, in a sermon, one pastor blamed the mess Jacob got into by marrying both Leah and Rachel on Rebecca because she did not defer to Isaac’s choice of a spouse for his son. Instead, the preacher suggests Esau should have been married off to Leah so Jacob could have Rachel, the one he wanted. Just because Jacob was more the son of promise, in this preacher’s idealized world, is Esau that obligated to ruin his life just so Jacob is satisfied?
The January 2013 issue of the Magazine of History criticizes Evangelical historiography in an article titled “Using The Past To Save Our Nation: The Debate Over Christian America”. Is the publication as eager to denounce politically correct approaches to the discipline not so much concerned about constructing an understanding of the past as it actually transpired but rather about coddling disruptive minorities that literally become destructive over a misconstrued glance or inflected pronoun?
Monday, February 25, 2013
The concept of "extreme discipleship" as advocated in the March 2013 issue of Christianity Today is just the latest euphemism concocted to brainwash the gullible into believing church authorities and deadbeats have a greater right to your property than you do. Why else does the illustration accompanying the article positively depict two pastors looking like filthy hippies hoisting aloft a red flag with a black “R” in a circle. Such blatantly anarchist and even Communistic symbolizing depicted in a positive manner should be as offensive as a swastika or Klan hoods.
In a radio news story about a prominent American Cardinal traveling to the conclave to select a new pope, experts speculated that an American pope would not be likely because of the status of the United States as a superpower. In other words, there is a strong anti-American element within the Vatican.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Obama threatening to lock the doors of restrooms in national parks. Just give back to nature and relieve yourself behind a tree if you've got to go that badly. It's all organic anyway. Least that's what they say when they try to sell vegetables grown in the stuff at marked up prices in the supermarket.
A story in the 2/18/13 edition of the Christian Science Monitor examines why the new breed of gun owner has decided to bear arms. The Monitor categorizes such individuals as "mainstream" and "temperate". These are usually terms of approval extended to those agreeing with the bland liberal establishmentarianism espoused by the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor has not usually propagandized on behalf of its eponymous creed. However, the paper is described on its masthead as “An activity of the First Church of Christ, Scientist. How moderate and temperate is it to believe, as this cult does, that the pain caused by a gunshot doesn’t really exist or that the truly spiritual would overcome such agony through the power of Jedi mind trickery?
Liberals Throw Hissy Fit Over The Design Of Licences For Illegals
This story is indeed an outrage. THESE DEADBEATS SHOULDN'T GET ANY LICENSE!!!!
Click On The Headline.
Bigger Fuss Made That Peterson Raised His Voice Than That He Killed His Wife
Typical feminism that yelling at the prospect of being tossed in the slammer for 30 plus years is proof one is capable of murdering one's wife. According to these radicals, failure to reply with anything but "Yes, dear." with one of those cheesy Oral Rpberts backup singers smiles plastered across your face to anything your wife says is grounds for a domestic violence charge.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Top Yahoo headlines consist of an announcement of Superman & Batman teaming up in new upcoming ongoing title. While the title itself might be new, is this really all that novel of a concept? Hasn't there been a title of this pairing, often under the branding of "World's Finest", in some form or the other for nearly 50 years now?
In an article chronicling the slide of Adam Lanza into homicidal violence, a fuss is made that his family's home cost $500,000. Would radical collectivists have preferred that his mass murderer dwelt in a less expensive domicile? Do they now intend to point out which inner city murders are on public assistance despite owning the latest IPhone and gold plated teeth?
In the 2/18/13 issue of America: The National Catholic Weekly, an article on the entitlement's society and the devaluation of labor concludes, "When social policies encourage the cessation of work at midlife, those early retirees no longer have access to work's non-material benefits." Interestingly, nothing was said about the able-bodied young, especially among the migrant groups pandered to by certain factions within the Catholic church, sucking off the system. The Pope would have stepped down long before reaching the age of 85 if the extent of his daily physically exertion went beyond waving at the assembled throng outside his balcony.
In the February 2013 issue of Perspectives On History, a letter to the editor reflecting on the future of the discipline suggests that intellectual and religious history be grouped together under the rubric the history of orientations to better focus on how over time how people made sense of the immaterial aspects of existence. However, one must ask is this also being done to further legitimize the academic study of the history of homosexuality elevating it to a status shared by the examination of ecclesiastical and philosophical pursuits?
One should be mindful of not being a stumbling block to a fellow Christian. However, at some point this concern can become an excuse to meddle in an individual's private affairs. And what about the codification of arbitrary standards commonly referred to as legalism itself becoming a stumbling block?
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Obama Threatens To Let Criminals Run Amok & Disasters Spiral Out Of Control If His Budget Demands Not Met
Click The Above For The Story
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
After blowing $900 on a Valentine's Dinner (more than most Americans spend on vacations in these troubled economic times if they go on vacations at all anymore), President Obama and the First Lady each set out on journeys to separate recreational destinations. Yet it is the average American that the President condemns of eating what they want, driving around in SUV's and heating their homes to 70 degrees and whose supporters insist the individualism embodied by such acts will bring about the extinction of the human species.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Screenwriter Tony Kushner claimed that the ideologies promoted by the Reagan administration pose a threat to the idea of human COMMUNITY and the very survival of the species. In other words, Reaganism undermined the notion how the collective is entitled to ever increasing percentages of your stuff. Isn’t Kushner confusing principled individualism with the gay marriages of the type of which he is a participant?
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The cover of the 2/25/13 issue of New Republic consists of a blank background with words written in gray reading "The Republicans: The Party Of White People". Would the editors of this screed posses the backbone to publish an issue titled "The Democrats: The Party Of Black People" or "The Party Of Jewish People"? And even if the Republican Party was the party of White people, why is that something inherently evil? Ironically, it is only White people that despise being White that make such a fuss over such things. Do not those of other racial backgrounds and ethnicities have political organizations lobbying on behalf of their interests? So why are Whites expected to bend over and have what they've worked for pulled out of their backsides?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
So is this going to be some Dallas type plot twist on the revived 80's prime time soap opera? If actress Judith Light was born in 1949 and is not really wearing any kind of makeup appliance to look considerably older than what she is in real life, isn't it a stretch of credulity to have Mitch Peliggi play her son when the actor was born in 1952?
Monday, February 11, 2013
In a sermon, a pastor gave an example of where Japanese volunteers were called upon to go on a suicide mission for the glory of the emperor. On this mission, each solider would at most be able to cut one or two pieces of barbed wire before being gunned down by the enemy. The pastor read favorably in essence how it was shameful that Christians weren't as dedicated. While one might be called upon to sacrifice much for the Lord, is it really proper for those in leadership to manipulate those under their authority by claiming that God told the authority figure to tell the mere lackey for the lackey to throw their life away? Why is such fanaticism held up as the ideal rather than struggling through the mundane drudgery of everyday existence?
The Navy SEAL wanting his full retirement should put in his full time like everybody else. Is it that he can't find a job or that he's not going to be told what to do outside the military by mere civilians. According to the logic of a Navy SEAL, should someone get full Social Security if they theoretically applied for it four years before being entitled to do so?
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Wikipedia says that Kang the Conqueror was one of Doctor Doom's descendants but that his last name is Richards. That must have been some tense wedding since it would mean that a female in Victor's lineage married someone from the Fantastic Four. Wonder if they would have gotten hitched just for spite.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
DC Comics plans to glorify the Occupy Movement in a new series called "The Movement". So will the oppressively wealthy denounced in the storyline include DC Comics itself that threatens with legal action independent graphic narrative writers and artists that unwittingly use the term "superhero"? As Greg Gutfeld remarked on Fox News, will this hero's powers include the ability to hurl his own feces, a tactic often utilized by activists at these protests?
Geraldo announced on The O'Reilly Factor that he is a Republican ahead of his possible announcement to run for a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey. I wonder how long he has held that conviction. These are the kinds of milksop candidates you are going to end up with when ethnicity is placed before ideology.
Friday, February 08, 2013
An article in the 2/1/13 issue of the Sword of the Lord details why the publication doesn’t recommend the works of C.S. Lewis. Interesting that, along with that explication as to the shortcomings of these texts, there was no call for Independent Fundamentalist Baptists to try their own hand at doctrinally improved speculative fiction. Nor was there an examination as to why the presuppositions of this particular religious movement have resulted in theologians and scholars coming up short in the realm of literary imagination.
Much Fuss Over Nothing Much
In light of a congressional staffer being fired over a Tweet, why is it somehow lewder to say you like a commerical featuring two woman seductively disrobing than that the commercial was actually broadcast?
Is the truly shocking outrage that a commercial with two disrobing woman caught the eye of a man or rather that a member of Congress was forced to admit to the public that they are not intelligent enough to compose their own Tweets?
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Monday, February 04, 2013
Friday, February 01, 2013
Despising The Old Rugged Cross
In one classic science fiction plot, antagonists attempt to gain control of the future by attempting to alter the past. Though it might not be as exciting as a Dalorian speeding at 88 miles per hour, maniacal forces in our own reality are attempting to accomplish nearly the same thing by drastically reconceptualizing our understanding of history.
Part of the way history is publicly remembered and allowed to exert an influence over the cultural milieu is through the erection of assorted monuments and memorials. This is itself a practice that, in part, traces its origin back through the pages of sacred scripture.
In Joshua 4:5-7, the representatives of the tribes of Israel are instructed as to the following: “Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant...These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever.”
This is not the only incident in Scripture where the believer is admonished to respect assorted physical historical commemorations. In Proverbs 22:28, the child of God is admonished to remove not the ancient landmark.
No doubt one of the reasons thorough going secularists and even their sissified allies among certain branches of the clergy leaning to the left fanatically lobby for the removal of religious symbols and emblems commemorating solemn events in the life of the nation is to no doubt alter our perception of history in the attempt to shift the country's underlying values and focus. By so doing, it is hoped that Americans will go from the most part being an independently inclined group of individuals who will protect their precious heritage to the point of laying down one's life should circumstances require it to one where the state is looked to as the first as the source of goodness and truth which it is free to redefine as changing circumstances warrant.
One such perspective lent a voice calling for the removal of Peace Cross (also just as correctly referred to as Victory Cross) in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association is orchestrating the campaign because the monument is erected on public land. In the mind of this agitprop front group, this violates the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.
However, one area minister in the 9/27/2012 Gazette newspaper of suburban Maryland provided what he considered a number of Christian reasons as to why the memorial cross should be taken down. Rev. Brian Adams of the Mount Rainier Christian Church is aligning himself with the outcome advocated by the American Humanist Association because he does not want the Cross associated with militarism and patriotism as a "general symbol of sacrifice."
In making his argument, Rev. Adams enunciated a number of questionable assumptions. He insists that the memorial is blaspheming the Cross by honoring violent people with weapons defending a country while they try to kill people from other countries.
No one in their right mind said war was a picnic. But how else will at least a small sliver of goodness otherwise survive in a fallen world? Does Rev. Adams honestly believe that once things have degenerated to the point of physical hostilities that appeals to reason, compassion, and the brotherhood of man alone will be enough to dissuade those bent on utter desolation?
If the way Rev. Adams categorizes the Crucifixion and a number of Biblical imperatives is a true summation of his doctrinal perspective, as a denomination the Disciples of Christ is in serious trouble.
Though it along with the Resurrection is one of the building blocks of the Christian religion and an offence or stumbling block to those hoping to make it to Heaven under the power of their own good works which are as filthy rags, the death of Christ upon that accursed tree was anything but, to use Rev. Adams' words, "the symbol of the son of God dying peacefully." History and medical science concur that it was in fact one of the most tortuous forms of execution ever devised.
Because the believer so appreciates the price paid by Jesus at the hill of Golgotha, over the centuries artists and craftsmen inspired by the moving beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of all sinners have transformed this implement of abject fear and terror visually into a beacon of hope and adoration. However, in the context of what happened that original Good Friday afternoon, the bejeweled sculptures and golden masterpieces are about as accurate as depicting a ride in Old Sparky the electric chair as if it was an overstuffed Lazy Boy recliner wrapped in a plush snuggy.
By referencing a work as readily available as "The Case For Christ" by Lee Stroebel (so much so that many ministries give away free paperback editions), both disciple and skeptic alike approximately 2000 years after this hinge point of history get a better idea of just how peaceful the passing of this Nazarene carpenter and rabbi was from this world. Stroebel in a chapter on the medical evidence lays out these horrors.
First, Jesus would have been secured to the cross by driving 5 inch nails through a portion of the wrist containing a nerve nearly as sensitive as the one in the area of the so-called funny bone. Once secured in this position, the cross would have been hoisted upright with the feet being secured in position in a manner similar to and as painful as that used upon the wrists. Yet, the suffering had only just begun.
The gravity pulling Jesus downward as the cross was thrust upward would have stretched at his arms, causing his shoulders to dislocate. With gravity pulling the individual downward, whatever waning strength remains in the individual is mustered to thrust the body upward in a reflex to merely continue the otherwise simple process of breathing so few of us even give a second thought to. In so doing, splinters would be driven deeper and deeper into the flesh of the back as it slid against a roughly hued pole not crafted with comfort in mind. This struggle would eventually result in suffocation as the victim in agony would grow too exhausted to continue.
Death upon the cross was of such a terrifying overwhelming agony that a new word had to be coined in order to accurately describe its unique variety of suffering. That word was none other than "excruciating".
So fundamentally wrong about this fundamental of the true Christian faith, it is no wonder Rev. Adams is so profoundly mistaken in regards to other interpretative matters as well. Rev. Adams writes that the cross is the symbol of Jesus “telling his followers to put down their weapons, and dying for the sake of hope, for the forgiveness and salvation of even those who put him to death.” What Rev. Adams has done here has been to take a course of action applied in a particular incident and elevated it to the status of a categorical universal imperative.
Rev. Adams is correct in the sense that in John 10:18 Jesus instructs that no man takes His life but that He gives it willingly. This was demonstrated in Luke 4 when a mob angered at words Christ delivered in the synagogue conspired to hurl Jesus over a cliff. Amidst such homicidal frenzy, Jesus miraculously perambulated on through unnoticed and unscathed.
Yet, later on, the Savior was not as eager to elude His captors. When Peter attempted to rescue Jesus resulting in the severing of the ear of the high priest's servant, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:53-54, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way (NIV)?" Christ chastised a foremost disciple because His unjust arrest was to unfold so that the greater purpose of His being slain from the foundation of the world might be fulfilled so that all calling upon the name of the Lord might be saved.
Though each of us are valued having been made in the image of God, the way we proceed into Glory will not cause the very cosmos to unhinge if it does not transpire in a precise manner as foretold as a part the public record of religious history. Therefore, though honor is to be bestowed upon those that lose their lives for the sake of the Gospel, one won't likely be given additional brownie points or a crown in Heaven should one not do everything moral within one's own power to preserve one's own life.
In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructs his disciples to turn the other cheek. Often, the application of this passage has encouraged an undue pacifism on the part of certain quietist sects and overly pious theologians. However, what is being addressed here is more akin to individual insults and certainly not the basis around which to build a foreign or defense policy.
The Gospels should not be construed as denying the individual the right of self defense should the individual feel the necessity to protect their life and that of their family. In Luke 22:36, Christ instructs, "...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Scripture admonishes the believer to be as wise as a serpent but as harmless as a dove. While the Christian is not to go around stirring up undue trouble, neither is the Christian to enter unequipped into situations that will result in overwhelming bodily harm or unnecessary physical death.
Just how literally do those raising the turning of the other cheek to something on the level of the Prime Directive from Star Trek want to take the remainder of the passage? In Matthew 5:41, the text reads, "And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." So will those insisting upon the turning of the other cheek as an unmodifiable absolute now teach their child that, instead of refusing to get into a car with a stranger, that you as a parent will punish them severely if they don't comply with every Sanduskite that slithers out of its sewer pile.
In his concluding paragraph, Rev. Adams declares that using the cross to symbolize the military or to praise the military amounts to a blasphemy equivalent to taking the Lord's name in vain. It seems that clergy within the Disciples of Christ would only be interested in adhering to the strictures of the divine scriptures when they think these teachings can be used to tear down the pillars upon which this great country rests.
For example, a number within the Disciples of Christ are also pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality and ultimately gay marriage. So where is this denomination's outrage over violation of the commandments prohibiting carnal relations between anyone other than a married man and woman?
This tendency to view the Bible and the traditional teachings that are extrapolated from it as optional flow from the Disciples of Christ positioning itself as a creedless church. Such a formalized belief is, of course, a creed itself.
According to Wikipedia, there are those within the Disciples of Christ that deny the Incarnation, the Trinity, and even the Atonement. So what's the point of even bothering with any of the religious racket if Christ as the only Begotten of the Father did not come to die for our sins?
The cross in Bladensburg is not a representation of what the military accomplished through force of arms. Instead, the cross commemorates those from Prince George's County Maryland that died in the First World War.
John 15:13 reads, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (KJV)." Given the disdain he has expressed for both those that take up arms in defense of the American republic and traditional formulation of Christian doctrine, perhaps Rev. Adams does not view the last full measure of devotion worthy of remembrance and appreciation on the part of the COMMUNITY. It seems those like Rev. Adams only extol this particular concept of social organization when it can be invoked as justification to further curtail those areas of existence remaining under personal purview or to confiscate additional percentages of your property.
Yes, a cross is a distinctively Christian symbol. But this particular cross under consideration goes beyond the implement upon which the Savior suffered and died.
At the base of each side of the memorial cross in Bladensburg is embossed a virtue such as endurance, courage, devotion, and valor. As well as representing those that died in Prince George's County during this particular conflict, these virtues on each base of the cross remind that it is not man that ranks these character traits among the desirable nobilities to strive for but rather that these have been decreed to be so by God Himself.
To most in the West in general and the United States in particular during the time of the First World War, deity or “the higher power” to categorize the ultimate in a way the fewest possible could object to was understood using Christian or Biblical formulations. So would those such as Rev. Adams and his allies among the cultured despisers of the Almighty have us remove all other historically accurate symbolizations of godhood as well?
Along with the words “In God we trust.” on the back of our currency, does Rev. Adams also intend to agitate to have the eye of Ra remove from particular tenders as well? Does he also want to knock over the blindfolded goddess of justice standing outside many of America’s courthouses? For does she not also represent, in a less than ideally Christian manner we’ll grant you, the idea that justice originates in a metaphysical realm above and distinct from the state no matter what that social organization’s swords or bullets might insist?
The memorial cross in Bladensburg is dedicated to a finite number of individuals, namely those from Prince George's County that died in World War I. Therefore, historians employed by the county could do something useful for a change, rather than continually stirring the pot about the short end of the stick Blacks have gotten in the past but have more than made up for now, by researching if there are any county records extant as to the religious affiliations of these honored veterans. If it turns out they were all Christian, nothing should be done to the memorial cross; should it turn out that a number were Jewish, instead of abolishing the park altogether, perhaps a plaque could be erected acknowledging the contribution of the patriots of that particular faith. The county certainly doesn’t seem to mind rubbing it in the public’s nose regarding the accomplishments of other minorities.
Psalm 11:3 says, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” The Founding Fathers were correct to warn of the danger of a state so given over to the interests of religion that whether or not one was to enjoy the basic entitlements and privileges of citizenship would be predicated upon formalized membership in an established ecclesiastical organization. However, that said, these thinkers also realized that any human undertaking would be doomed to failure if such an enterprise went out of its way to slap aside the outstretched hand of a beneficent deity.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wonder what else is shriveled on those that sit on the Federal Raisin Administrative Committee? According to Mark Levin, these tyrants seize nearly 1/2 of all raisins to be distributed to deadbeats (who probably just chuck them in the trash) or foreign countries (whose heathens will no doubt be imbued with the nutrients necessary to burn flags, cut the heads of journalists, and to rant how evil America is).
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
.jpg){kind=link}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)