Monday, October 27, 2014
A self-loathing Caucasoid has attempted to capitalize on a slice of the racial grievance racket through essays titled “Seven Things I Can Do That My Son Can’t” and “I Hope My Son Stays White”. In these, the author laments the lack of acceptance on the part of the White devils. In summary, he asks why are Black males still feared in White America. Frankly, it’s not the Swedes that have rampaged for months on end in Missouri and threatening more violence if the judicial system does not rubber stamp a predetermined outcome in the Michael Brown case. Perhaps the author should have been more selective with whom he decided to procreate instead of branding everybody as racist that fails to applaud his redistributionist agenda.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Religious Busybodies Condemn Gravesite Ornamentation
The minister rhetorically asked what was the point of doing so since the person's essence is not there anyway.
It is correct that there in the ground are only the physical remains.
However, Christianity is not Gnosticism.
Unlike that errant belief, Christianity places considerable value upon the body.
What lies there is a tangible connection to the departed loved one.
One must indeed be careful about imbuing these remains with a transferable spiritual energy that they do not possess.
Placing flowers at a grave or visiting the location occasionally extends a degree of respect to the person's memory and, in the mind of the Christian, honors the hope and truth that one day one of the saints dead in Christ will resurrect from that very spot.
Furthermore, for those that practice the custom of placing flowers on the grave, the act is often a way for the individual to cope with what may be overwhelming grief.
But perhaps ministers in Pastor Cooley's circles don't want people to find coping mechanisms.
More than likely, they'd rather people go ahead and descend into mental illness so as not to mess up the sermon rotation for those homilies condemning the depression that sets in for many following the Christmas holiday.
By Frederick Meekins
Shouldn't Christians Be More Outraged At Scripture Twisting Than Trick Or Treating?
In the exegesis that followed, the minister expounded that it was nearly a sin to do anything at night other than sleep as if to do so were some kind of mark of evil.
But what if you are a nocturnal type that is more alert at night?
Or what if, no matter what you do, you tend not to sleep the whole night through?
But is the text really so much about the condemnation of any activity at night other than slumber?
Earlier in the passage, the text emphasizes that the Day of the Lord is at hand.
The verses that follow remind the believer that we do not belong to darkness.
There is not much argument that significant carousing takes place while many of the more industrious and diligent are at home resting up for work the next day.
However, from the passage, one could just as legitimately conclude that both sleep and drunkenness are more metaphors for a lack of discernment and awareness.
The drunken could be viewed as those so overwhelmed by the despair of the world that the turn to overwhelming distraction.
The asleep are those that just don't give a tinker's you know what.
From such a comparison, a case could be made that the drunken might be better off because at least they are troubled by some kind of nagging sense that something is not right in the world.
If a pastor is going to position themselves as being so spiritual as to take a hardline position against Halloween, shouldn't they at least be as cautious as to consider the verse of scripture immediately prior to the one they intend to bash over the heads of those that do not agree with their interpretation of certain secondary matters?
I Thessalonians 5:6 counsels, “Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.”
This portion of the epistle under consideration is similar in motif to Christ's parable of the virgins in Matthew 25 that let their lamps go out waiting for the groom to arrive at the marriage feast.
If the passage is to be utilized to condemn Halloween on the grounds that it prompts people to participate in nocturnal activities other than slumber, shouldn't the next sermon in the series aim its condemnation at the mattress or pillow industry for abetting recuperative unconsciousness?
For in the passage, sleep is not portrayed all that positively either.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Assistance Applicants Crying Poor Mouth Live High On The Hog
Yet this individual can afford a $30,000 SUV and a $10,000 loan that went primarily to provide his wench with a wedding or engagement ring.
The couple, despite apparently considering nutritional assistance, can apparently afford an Iphone 6 when there was nothing wrong with the cellphone that they already have.
Out of curiosity, I researched the WIC requirements for the state in which the couple resides.
Two of the criteria are interesting.
One allows for a new mom with a child up to six months of age.
Another criteria allows for mothers breastfeeding infants up to a year old.
One might make a case to extend this program to the mom while she is pregnant or is breastfeeding.
However, as soon as the whelp shoots from the birth canal of a mother that does not intend to breastfeed, there is no need to continue this nutritional assistance to her.
For the baby is not directly dependent upon her for nourishment as in the other examples that might justify the entitlement program.
Why not go ahead and provide the father with food for his own consumption as well?
He is, after all, the one that is traditionally still actually going to work while the mom is loafing about on maternity leave.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Monday, October 20, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Pastor Baffled Why Christians Reluctant To Embrace Death At The Hands Of ISIS Or Ebola
It was then remarked you can either die at the hands of ISIS or from Ebola, so you might as well have a positive attitude about it.
Do those making such statements in a religious frenzy actually stop to consider how it is to perish as a result of such necrotic modalities?
Regarding the concern Christians often express regarding death.
Why are we at fault regarding the survival instinct God has imbued into nearly every form of life?
Furthermore, if Scripture says that those that hate God love death, wouldn't it therefore follow that as the most correct religion that Christians would be the most averse to this disputed metabolic state?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, October 17, 2014
Could The President's UN Remarks Undermine Religious Liberty
The President went on to clarify, “There should be no tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm innocents.”
The President suggested that this could be accomplished in part by composing a “new compact...to eradicate the corruption of young minds by violent ideology” and by “contesting the space that terrorists occupy --- including the Internet and social media.”
Such proposed policies sounds like a prudent course of action to take against those out to destroy the American way of life.
But in deciphering the double talk that spews from the mouths of political elites like phlegm during flu season, the discerning grow concerned as to whether or not such rhetorical pronouncements will only be used against the jhadist menace.
Given the President's fundamental ideological orientation as a socialistic secularist, what safeguards are to be put in place that these strategies won't be used against Americans of a conservative Evangelical or Roman Catholic persuasion?
For example, when the average American hears Obama insist that no child anywhere should be taught to hate other people, images of toddlers and preschoolers being indoctrinated by a giant plushy mouse as to the glories of not only killing Christians and Jews but of their own suicide martyrdoms.
However, in the eyes of the crowd that Obama runs with, propagating hate can consist of little more than publicly reading those passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality or peacefully insisting that professing belief in Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.
In fact, columnist Mark Steyn was dragged before a Canadian human rights tribunal for remarks not too much more rhetorically forceful than those made by Obama on the floor of the United Nations by simply exposing what jihadists had themselves articulated.
Obama suggested that different faiths should come together to speak out against this violent worldview.
It depends upon what the President means by that.
Fine and dandy if he means a respect for human decency being enunciated individually from behind each pulpit in a wide variety of houses of worship.
However, if the President is suggesting that widely diverging faiths are obligated to open their pulpits to one another free of doctrinal criticism as to where these guests measure up and fall theologically short, the government will have taken a step one too many to the point where its agencies will likely become the next great threat to our own liberties and well being once the identifiable terrorist menace has been identified and appropriately dispatched.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Naive Lutheran Would Welcome Homiletical Interrogation
He ruminated that it might be the only time that these magistrates might be exposed to a nonlegalistic version of Christianity.
But is it really the proper function of civil authorities to deploy its policing powers to penalize doctrinal expression that has not veered beyond the boundaries of verbalization into the territory of physical or financial abuse?
Self-Loathing Jew Jon Stewart Calls For The Elmination Of The Caucasoid Hegemony
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
British Magazine Denigrates White Males
Among the articles is one titled “The Whitest Men: We Talk To Four Unexceptional Party Leaders”.
Since this is a British magazine, of course leaders in that European nation that climb a conventional career ladder aren't going to be as exciting as the Nigerians there that select a solider at random to decapitate in the middle of the street to make a political point.
If this same periodical had published a similar edition with a caricature of the hook-nosed Jew from Nazi propaganda or something similar emphasizing the fiendishly exaggerated features of the typical Islamist, wouldn't these editors have violated some kind of hate speech regulations?
Broadcaster Michael Savage was banned from entering the United Kingdom altogether for simply highlighting the threats posed by assorted manifestations of multiculturalism to borders, language, and culture.
By Frederick Meekins
Pastor's Advice Could Result In Prolonged Abuse
But in the world in which we live, shouldn't that instruction be conditioned to apply only to minor everyday slights?
For example, should a wife say, “My husband only backhands me once in a while, but he certainly buys me pretty things.”
Should the husband say, “I might have caught her in the backyard next door squirming around in the neighbor's lap, but I should just be satisfied because she's the only woman that would consider marrying me.”
And what about church?
Should it be said, “Well, pastor might skim off the collection plate when he thinks no one is looking and, sure, he cops a feel of the teen girls occasionally, but boy can he preach a sermon condemning nearly every last aspect of the contemporary world and how we ought to avoid contact with any church that doesn't embrace our doctrinal peculiarities in their unaltered totality.”
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Reflections Upon Ebola
In other words, it is her own expletive fault.
So does the government's medical establishment enunciate the same flippant dismissiveness regarding those that contract sexually transmitted diseases?
Eventually, Friedan did apologize for his remarks.
But if a public health functionary would still need to be punished for verbalizing such sentiments in reference to certain celebrated lifestyles, then why not in this particular instance where a dedicated individual was attempting to assist the suffering and afflicted rather than satisfying some carnal desire?
It was pointed out on Hannity that 900,000 Africans could perish in the Ebola epidemic.
This will undoubtedly rank among the great disasters of the 21st century.
The bubonic plague was one of the events demarcating the close of the Middle Ages and the commencement of the Modern Era?
Likewise, are we witnessing the close of this epoch even apart from any eschatological considerations. How much of the present order will be left standing this time next year?
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 13, 2014
An 81 year old British deviant has undergone genital mutilation in the attempt to coerce and dupe the linguistically weak to refer to him as a woman. Mind you, under the same British healthcare system, bureaucrats would probably deny prostate surgery to a man of the same age afflicted with cancer of that particular organ.
Must Life Come To A Screeching Halt For The Good Of The Cause?
Filling in for Chris Plante on WMAL, Austin Hill said that in reference to the jihadist threat that he hopes America can peel itself away from ESPN and The Voice.
So does that mean Americans must dedicate themselves around the clock to politics?
If so, how is this totalization on the right where all resources must be directed by the elites of he cause all that preferable to the revolutionary austerity called for by leftists ideologues.
Decades ago, even soldiers on the frontlines got a Bob Hope USO show with broads in highheels and skimpy (for the time) swimsuits.
By Frederick Meekins
What Should Be Learned From The American Indian
Firstly, these indigenous people are no more native to these lands than the Whitey interloper or technically they would not be part of the same human species.
There is no better way to remember and honor the sacrifices of this people group than by barring travelers from other regions with diseases to which there is little immunity that can wipe out entire cultures and civilizations.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
Snobs Demean The Economics Of Cosplay
But so are some that have to be in church every time the door swings open even if they aren't on the payroll.
To a number, it is merely a creative outlet.
I guess opponents would rather a number of these artists instead descend into mental illness so they can be reamed for that from the pulpit as well.
The article opens by pointing out the number of Japanese young adults that have turned to this form of recreation who hold low-paying contract jobs.
Shouldn't the emphasis be on low paying jobs?
It seems these individuals are working.
And so long as they are not on public assistance as they pursue this hobby, is this really anyone's business?
Unlike the analyst posting this article, not everyone can land a prestigious gig at the American Enterprise Institute.
As was emphasized on the Syfy Channel series Heroes Of Cosplay, often participants pursue this hobby as a way to network into the highly competitive fields of theatrical costume design and even the video game industry.
So in that sense, how is what they do any different than someone that dedicates an inordinate amount of time in pursuit of Olympic gold?
Can Thought Police Evict Citizens For Espousing Criminal Ideas?
In a state that wallows in its embrace of diversity, who is to say what ideas belong there? More importantly, how would this be policed?
The statement goes to a level much more profound than electoral politics.
In all likelihood, Larry Hogan will continue to reside in the jurisdiction (and thus his ideas) even if he loses the election.
What if a similar advertisement was broadcast promulgating nearly the same perspective insisting the proponents of gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, and radical Islam were not welcome in the state of Maryland either?
Thursday, October 09, 2014
Obama Not Owed Ultimate Loyalty
Panetta did not take an oath to the President.
A president is only owed loyalty if a president is loyal to his own oath of office.
It has been insisted that Panetta should have kept his concerns to himself until Obama left office.
Would the same ones applaud Rommel for having ignored what his Christian conscience was telling him about Hitler's moral failings and evils?
Wednesday, October 08, 2014
Religious Leftists Agitate Politically
According to the 10/15/2014 issue of the Christian Century, a coalition of religious leftists is launching a campaign to encourage voter registration in low income and immigrant communities.
In other words, populations likely to elect candidates more likely to promise the largest handout payments.
This mobilization effort plans to organize under the banner of Let My People Vote.
Mind you, these are likely the very same agitators insisting that the pro-life, pro-family, and pro-American policy preferences of Religious Right organizations such as Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition cheapen the cause of the Gospel.
Broadcaster Hints Ebola Plague Could Be Retribution For Violating Mosaic Dietary Guidelines
In his analysis, he pointed out that the virus can be spread through the fruit bat, which a number of Africans consume as part of their native cuisine.
Crismier interjected that such a practice is not Biblical.
If the apologist is insisting that Old Testament dietary regulations are binding upon New Testament non-Jewish believers, he is not correct.
In Matthew 15:11, Christ Himself counsels that an individual is not defiled by what goes into one's mouth but rather by what comes out of the elocutionary orifice.
This New Testament alteration of the Old Testament law seems to be sustained by a number of other passages.
In I Timothy 4:4, the Apostle Paul asserts that ALL foods (not just the list of Mosaic kosher foods) can be enjoyed with thanksgiving.
To clarify that God was the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles, in Acts 10 Peter was instructed to eat from a selection of foods that up until that point that he had been conditioned to avoid as unclean.
God would not have compelled Peter to do something that was still a violation of God's law.
It's not like Peter was told to marry a man or to offer worship up towards a false god.
It is a correct observation that very few Americans would want to eat a bat.
However, is Chuck Crismier going to insist that he has never eaten or since repented of partaking of crab, shrimp, or lobster which are also forbidden under Old Testament dietary guidelines since these creatures are essentially underwater coach roaches?
Likewise, if Chuck Crismier believes this strongly about strict adherence to the Mosaic law in its entirety, does he intend to broadcast an episode of his Viewpoint news and cultural analysis program condemning the Duck Dynasty clan for the consumption of yet another food clearly forbidden in the pages of Old Testament revelation?
And what about the fast food industry such as Burger King and McDonald's?
A common complaint among certain factions of the more doctrinally enthusiastic is that contemporary Evangelicals are insufficiently Hebraic in their approach to the interpretation and application of Scripture.
So if Africans are to be condemned for consuming bats which might be one of the very few food items available to such impoverished populations, does one have to be consistent and declare an all out crusade against the All American cheeseburger?
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Some comedy bit on Rush Limbaugh mocked young adults still living with their parents. Will their also be one mocking those married four times with none of the marriages ending in the death of the spouse, those being so addicted to painkillers that it blows out their ears, or getting caught returning from the Third World with Viagra in someone else's name when you claim to be more chaste than the Pope?
Walmart plans to eliminate health insurance coverage for its part time employees. I told you that was why years ago the corporation produced a commercial featuring aspiring thespians with a vacant brainwashed gaze to their visages articulating how much they supported the healthcare reform act on behalf of all Americans.
Monday, October 06, 2014
Would Jesus Attend You Halloween Party?
In all fairness, I doubt he's want to be at most church services either.
Click On The Headline
Does The Archbishop Of Canterbury Prefer Fellowship With Perverts & Apostates?
Sunday, October 05, 2014
Is The Southern Baptist Missions President More Interested In Your Stuff Than Your Soul?
A Facebook meme attributed to Southern Baptist International Missions Board president David Platt is quoted as saying the following: “Accept him? Do we really think Jesus needs our acceptance? Don't we need Him? Jesus is no longer one to be accepted or invited in but one who is infinitely worthy of our immediate and total surrender.”
Is there really a reason to get one's backside up on one's shoulders over a pastor or evangelist that phrases the soteriological appeal in terms of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?
Granted, as part of the infinite triune Godhead, Jesus can hobble along quite fine without us no matter how much Pastor Platt believes world missions might collapse without his particular brand of religious over-enthusiasm.
What it simply means when someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior is that the person assents to the truth and validity of the claims and conditions made in the Gospels.
What is interesting is Rev. Platt's phraseology of immediate and total surrender.
Traditionally, that is what occurs when the sincere individual comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, meaning one makes a concerted effort with the help of the Holy Spirit to resist those more sinful desires.
However, what Platt may mean by that, given the perspective taken in a number of his books such as “Radical” and his sermons available on sites such as Youtube, is a bit different.
To Platt, it is not so much that your life and possessions are Christ's to determine directly how these are to be used to His glory but rather that is to be determined by your betters up the ecclesiastical food chain.
According to sermons from the likes of Rev. Platt, in taking up your cross, it is not sufficient to endure a particular struggle or trial that has come into your life but rather that you are to think of yourself as on the way to execution in terms that you are supposed to be wracked with profound guilt for a standard of living above that of the subsistence level.
However, religious superstars such as David Platt are to enjoy a semi-luxurious lifestyle flying across the country and around the globe having accolades and wads of cash tossed in their direction over how wonderful they are for being outraged that you have what you have.
Christ Himself says in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”
The text does not say that Jesus will beat down the door.
Customarily, when someone knocks at the door, it is your right to either open the door to invite them into your dwelling or to decline their request along with whatever it is they might be happening to bring you.
But then again, we are in the age where apparently the theological celebrities know more than Christ ever did.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, October 03, 2014
Thursday, October 02, 2014
Pastor Apparently Selective In What Pagan Practices He Condemns
To this, the podcaster interviewing Pastor Cooley remarked that he knew there was a reason why he did not like cats.
Pastor Cooley concurred with an “Amen.”
But who is it that created cats?
Surely it was not Satan.
Was it not the God that we are supposed to be so dedicated to that we can't even participate in a festival that does not possess any meaning for most other than dressing up in a silly costume to collect candy from door to door?
Cats are not inherently evil.
That is merely the connotation they have been imbued with from a cultural and literary standpoint derived from subjective existential or psychological sources.
In other words, from nothing more than what someone happened to think or feel regarding them.
Should something be abandoned because a number construe a conceptual or ontological category to be evil rather than it actually being so?
So does this include Fundamentalist Baptist Churches?
For years, that form of ecclesiology's most ardent adherents rightly condemned the pedophile scandals that wracked the Roman Catholic Church.
However, it turns out that nearly the same perversion had gripped a number of hardline Independent Fundamentalist ministries.
Therefore, isn't it logical to contend that there have been more innocent people hurt in a spirit of appalling wanton sin perpetrated by those that should have known better than were ever hurt by cats exhibiting a similar degree of deliberate malice?
So does that mean we should refrain from attendance at these particular houses of worship to avoid offending the weaker brother?
Often, the conspicuously pious will homiletically insist that Halloween ought to be avoided altogether not so much to refrain from actual wrongdoing but to avoid the appearance of such and out of the necessity to separate from unclean things as counseled by Scripture.
As such, shouldn't we also consider the source of this sentiment against cats if the propriety or impropriety of a thing is to be determined not so much by how it is practiced today but rather by ideas affiliated with it at the time a custom came into existence?
By the pastor's own admission, this particular prejudice is supposedly Druid in origin.
Thus, if we are to severe all connections with Halloween for being pagan in origin, why not this unfounded contempt for felines as well?
By Frederick Meekins
Dyke Stuck With Mulatto Pygmy
Click On The Headline
Wednesday, October 01, 2014
Will The Roman Catholic Church Attempt To Deny The Divorced Access To Salvation?
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Apostate Insists The Bible No More Binding That Star Wars Or Lord Of The Rings
German Perverts Insist Incest Prohibitions Undermine Sexual Self Determination
Monday, September 29, 2014
When The Filthy Heathens In The Neighborhood Want Quiet, Everyone Must Be Quiet
Saturday, September 27, 2014
Friday, September 26, 2014
Does Enslavement Uplift Spirits?
If a woman wants to wear such an outfit, that might be her business.
However, isn't the more pressing issue at hand the women being forced to wear these getups in areas where the particular form of extremeism such garments exemplify is on the rise?
Is one to conclude that the jihadists that hacked off the breasts of Christian women were instead simply trying to liberate these women from body dysmorphic disorder?
Regarding adherents of this creed that parade about in full heathen regalia to the extent that even their faces are concealed.
What assurances does an instructor in an academic setting have that it's the same student that shows up everyday adorned in such a potentially deceptive manner.
What if a member of the Ku Klux Klan showed up making their daily rounds in public in complete costume?
Tolerancemongers will insist what the Klansman is doing is intended to excite a spirit of fear and express hatred.
But so is the Mohammedan.
For such ensembles are not donned so much out of sincere religious devotion but out of contempt for our liberties that allow such imbeciles to cavort about without opposition or even question.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Apparently Only Certain Deaths Worthy Of Nazarene Reflection
It might be one thing to light a candle on behalf of his memory as a human being.
However, if he had not met his parting from this world in a manner that could be exploited to further assorted politically correct agendas, would this church have lit a candle for him?
Given that his church is located in the Washington/Baltimore corridor with its own disturbingly high rate of homicide, does this church post photos of candles lit on behalf of other murder victims explicitly by name?
Tagged on to the name of Michael Brown is mention of “our work to end racism”.
There is really no proof that the Michael Brown incident had anything to do with racism.
The foremost examples of racism involved surrounding this issue were of those that rampaged in the streets of Ferguson.
Does this Nazarene church intend to post candles lit beseeching divine protection for the shopkeeper brutalized by Michael Brown in the last hour of his life and the owners of the property pillaged by his supporters?
Or has the Church of the Nazarene been so given over to the social gospel embraced by much of the Emergent Church to the extent that the leadership of this particular congregation contends that property owners get whatever they deserve at the hands of the allegedly disadvantaged?
By Frederick Meekins
Pervert Jurist Concludes Rape Licences Not Beyond The Realm Of Legal Possibility
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Monday, September 22, 2014
A pastor mentioned that, during Puritan times, if someone in the congregation nodded off during the sermon, the somnolent could be whacked by a roving usher. The pastor joked that perhaps we should return to our heritage. If one is to hold to the sola scruiptura of rigorous Protestantism, in what passage is such a use of force called for? How about pastors introducing or suggesting ideas nowhere called for in the pages of the Bible being beaten with a rod?
Where does it say if you are committing a sin when Jesus returns that you will be punished for that throughout all of eternity if you otherwise embrace Christ as Lord and Savior? And why is that moment any different than at the moment of a traditional death? What if you see a car barreling towards you and the moment before you die you shout “HOLY SH-T”? Even Paul admitted that he did that which he did not want to do.
A pastor remarked that there is no greater service than Christian service. The pastor than limited Christian service to those instances where one directly shared the Gospel. But given that we are not solely spiritual beings, shouldn't service intending to meet these other needs if those are the specific fields one has been called to address as one's vocation also be considered Christian service? Do you really want a Christian fireman to be exegeting the Scriptures to you when he should be putting out your house fire? Wasn't one of Protestantism's initial goals to correct this kind of errant perspective that had crept into medieval Christianity?
Why Aren’t You Entitled To Know The Background Character Of A Potential Mate?
However, if a relationship begins to progress beyond the stages of merely going out casually, especially if the person claims to never have been married before, aren't you entitled to know more about this aspect of an individual's character?
Why shouldn't someone that has lived a morally chaste life be able to decide for themselves based on all of the available information if they are willing to settle for soiled goods? Jesus does indeed forgive.
However, His record really isn't all that impressive in preventing the spread of the AIDS virus or other related diseases.
Are we to also avoid questions about other important issues such as previous marital status or doctrinal preferences in ascertaining the suitability of a potential mate?
According to this logic, one is suppose to accept being saddled in a relationship with a Baptist that has been a total whore rather than a Catholic or a Holy Roller that has kept their pants on and their legs together. Interesting how a sense of forgiveness or whatever one wants to call it should be so blind and stupid regarding one particular sin but if one decides to marry someone that is honest about a divorce about the only thing you will be allowed to do in some of these hardline churches is to empty your wallet into the collection plate.
by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, September 21, 2014
Would Graham Have Preferred To Meander Down The Canterbury Trail?
A Harvard University Press biography of Billy Graham claims that, if the world's most famous Baptist had his life to live over again, he would consider becoming an evangelical Anglican.
Such a spiritual and ecclesiastical path would have a number of things to commend it.
Foremostly, to be baptized into such a church, one would not necessarily have to be dunked underwater.
Anglicans also accept sprinkling and pouring as appropriate modalities of this primary Christian rite.
To Baptists, it is immersion or nothing at all.
Though identifying as Protestant and distinct from Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism is not so hostile to the other form of Western Christianity so as to forsake that which it is still capable of teaching the believer despite the shortcomings that have taken root in that particular theological expression over the centuries.
Some Baptists, on the other hand, are energized by little more than just how much they can stick it in the eye of the Church of Rome.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Friday, September 19, 2014
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty has enunciated more than his dislike of homosexuals. He has also made known his disapproval of fat kids, city dwellers, men that like cats, and females not married by the age of 15. In one episode, his wife insinuated that it is inappropriate for unmarried couples to hold hands. Wonder if they will make similarly doctrinaire statements regarding their granddaughter shaking her backside in a skimpy outfit on national TV. Or, as “Christian leaders”, do they get the customary exemption from the standards we non-celebrities are expected to adhere to.
Rape Victim Arrested For Refusing To Thank Muslim For Treating Her Like A Whore
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Analysts Rush To Defense Of NFL Player Accused Of Child Abuse
Will he be suspended from his broadcasting duties like the correspondent that simply asked why Janay Rice would deliberately marry a known domestic abuser?
Will Black media personalities insisting that the beating of their youth by parents is just the way things are done down South insist that Paula Deen's fortune be restored because what she said in the privacy of her own home to her husband that resulted in no bodily injury is just the way things were done down South?
Since it was the way things use to be done, are those applauding the beating of a four year old to the point of bodily injury going to also tell us that it's also appropriate to deny children wholesome affection such as hugs or that to lavish attention and resources on one child to the point of neglecting other less desirable children in a family for no legitimate reason is acceptable.
Those kinds of things use to go on as well.
According to former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, the propriety of a parental action such as a beating is to be determined by the pile of money or status that accrues to the recipient of such tactilely intensive correction.
If Adrian Peterson has approximately seven children by near as many women none of which he is married to, there has obviously been some kind of shortcoming or breakdown in the parental process somewhere.
Adrian Peterson's methods of discipline are being justified or overlooked on the grounds that that was the way things were always done.
Peterson is estimated to have fathered seven children.
He refuses to disclose the answer to this question himself definitively.
Nor does it sound like he is married to any of the mothers.
In those heralded golden days of yore invoked to justify the bruising of a four year old, didn't you usually get married before procreating that prodigiously?
Perhaps we should hold off a bit before lavishing this reprobate with father of the year accolades as some in certain conservative circles seem eager to bestow upon him.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Southern Baptist Missions President Applauds Family Neglect In God's Name
As an example, Pastor Platt praised John Bunyan who was tossed into prison for refusing to stop preaching when ordered to by Anglican authorities despite the hardship endured by his family in general and his blind child in particular.
The Christian should not deny Christ.
However, Bunyan was initially imprisoned for preaching without a license.
Whether we agree with that or not is a secondary matter.
Often in a fallen world, the situations are so bad that the individual is forced to prioritize from a list of less than ideal options.
From the Wikipedia entry on John Bunyan, one gets the impression authorities were not initially inclined to imprison Bunyan until he blurted out that he'd be out preaching again the next day.
That causes one to ponder was it necessarily Christ that Bunyan was infatuated with or the adrenaline rush one can get from a good fight.
I Timothy 5:8 admonishes that those that do not take care of their own family are worse than an infidel.
The same ones praising John Bunyan for in their minds putting Christ in a proper place above the needs of his family would turn around and heap condemnation upon others for not taking care of the Bunyan urchins.
However, shouldn't taking care of the spiritual and physical needs of these children have been the foremost life's mission of the Bunyan parents?
Why couldn't have Bunyan been as an upstanding Christian example ministering to the needs of his ailing child and instead return to spreading the Gospel to others behind the back of authorities at a later time?
Jesus did indeed counsel that the believer's love of family should look like hate in comparison to that for Him.
However, the most profound expression of devotion to Christ may be in loving our family members in those times we feel like loving them the least or get distracted by a cause we deem much more exciting than the mundane duties of this world.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 15, 2014
Halloween Sermon Exposes Minister's Desire For Religious Dictatorship
Rather he argued against it from the standpoint of the Reformed belief against the impropriety of man authorizing holy days not found in Scripture.
In this homily, he seemed to praise and certainly did not criticize Scottish authorities at the time of the Reformation that forbade under penalty of law those celebrating such commemorations after Presbyterianism became that nation's established church.
However, if man does not have the authority to compel extra-biblical holy days, on what grounds does one then forbid an individual from incorporating these practices as part of their individual devotion after they have been informed that observation of the day is not necessarily a requirement?
For does not Romans 14:5-6 seem to indicate that these sorts of matters are more in the realm of individual conscience?
In a sermon against Halloween, Presbyterian Brian Schwertly described a prank he use to engage in during that particular time of year where he would light a bag of, in his words, “poop” on fire and leave it on someone's porch.
Instead of remorsefully recounting this story in a tone of repentance, he actually laughed about it.
If Halloween really is as evil as the hardline Fundamentalists make it out to be, wouldn't that be the equivalent of fondly recalling before the congregation how Buffy down at the gentleman's club would twirl as she was giving him a lap dance?
Wouldn't an ultalegalist such as himself consider a person exhibiting such glee in the House of God insufficiently contrite?
Yes, he should be classified as an ultralegalist as he insinuated at another point in the sermon series that Roman Catholics and Arminians should be denied citizenship in the idealized Christian Reconstructionist regime.
In the sermon “Halloween: A Biblical Critique Of James Jordin & American Vision, Part 2”, Brian Schwertly examined the argument that Christian participation in Halloween is valid and legitimate as a way of ridiculing the power of Satan.
Schwertly contends that such a perspective is inappropriate in light of Jude 1:9 in which it is suggested that even the mightiest of angels are cautious about underestimating the Old Deluder.
However, it has been suggested that often conceptualizing of evil in a literary or narrative form similar to a fairy tale can assist the young in placing these kinds of fears and terrors in a proper perspective.
Why can't the symbology of Halloween play a similar kind of role?
But more importantly, perhaps the argument about justifying Halloween as a way of minimizing Satan's influence through good old fashioned ridicule came about as a result of the need in some of the more rigorous wings of Evangelicalism to always find itself in an “on position” in terms of some grand outreach effort or engaged in some never-ending confrontation.
Can't a kid just go out for a night dressed in costume to collect some candy without it being as if the Apocalypse was looming or the fate of the world hanging in the balance?
By Frederick Meekins
It is often requested during opening prayers at many churches that those gathered in the House of God be there solely for God alone rather than out of a sense of tradition or because of friends. But is it really an either/or proposition? For the most part, is it not good or at least a potential good that these days that the person is there at all? Why can't those things such as tradition or friendship which God created for good be used to draw someone to the Lord?
In an exposition on the verses from Romans 14 teaching that two Christians can hold differing convictions on a matter and still each be within the will of God, it was insisted that it is still the prerogative of the pastor to expound their particular interpretation given the nature of the homiletical act. And it is the prerogative of the average believer if they feel so called to use social media to analyze and critique such oratorical pronouncements.
It is said that some have a conviction against attending movie theaters because of the inappropriate “laying on of hands” that at times takes place in such establishments. Don't some refrain from attending certain kinds of churches (and sometimes even all churches altogether) for the exact same reason?
Thursday, September 11, 2014
The National Council Of Churches on 8/18/2014 issued a statement regarding the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The statement read in part, “These killings, as well as those of hundreds of Americans...at the hands of increasingly militarized police forces is a great and growing concern. A peaceful, healthy society requires trust...between citizens and law enforcement.” One must stop and ask if the National Council Of Churches was a morally reflective and critical of Communists and Socialists when the organization was snuggling up to these kinds of regimes, movements, and revolutions during the Cold War years.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
If Frau Obama's nutritional guidelines forbid hardboiled eggs as inappropriate for school lunches, shouldn't the annual White House Easter Egg Roll also be canceled? After all, though it's hard to say for certain given the kinds of moral permissiveness applauded by this regime, no parent in their right mind would bring their child to participate in a White House hypodermic needle toss or condom follies.
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Thought Police Interogate NBA Player For Noticing Player Black
Fascinating. Contemporary Blacks drone on incessantly about being Black but Whites apparently to be persecuted for daring to notice.
CLick oN The Headline
Would Legion Of Superheroes Be DC's Answer To Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy?
Click On The Headline
SheTaxi is a taxi new service that employs only female drivers and accepts only female passengers. What if someone wanted a taxi driven by someone other than an Al Qadea poster boy who can barely speak a lick of English? What if a passenger demanded a driver other than a vehicularly incompetent Asian woman? What if a transportation company refused to pick up anyone but White customers?
Monday, September 08, 2014
Homeschool activist Kevin Swanson condemned as “traitors to the cause of freedom” World Magazine for publishing a story drawing attention to a number of homeschool students believing they were not served well by that pedagogical modality. Swanson is correct that those with a Christian worldview ought to expose the deficiencies and abuses of the secularist system. However, if one's loyalty is to God's truth and just not those claiming to be on your side, aren't those that were possibly mistreated in the name of religion also allowed to verbalize their concerns so as to better protect the movement from falling into Satan's snares? If entire ministries can be established to expose the dangers of the public system, what is wrong with someone doing the same regarding the underside of private and home education? True freedom must remain vigilant to protect against both the overly and areligious.
In a sermon on the purpose of the church, an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor remarked that the believer does not have the right to determine their own mission. It depends what is meant by that. One is not free to pursue a lifestyle in violation of the parameters of the “Thou shalt nots” of Scripture. However, within those boundaries one is free to “work out one's own salvation in fear and trembling”. If you zigged into one legitimate career instead of zagging into another, on what grounds can Jesus get ticked off at you unless He deliberately tells you what to do in the areas marked by considerable individual choice and preference?
A pastor enunciated from behind the pulpit that Communism was not inherently in opposition with Christianity. Rather, only that ideology’s anti-religious accretions were evil, not necessarily the systemic imposed material equality. But doesn’t that violate the dictum of “Thou shalt not steal”? And what about the Biblical truism of a workman being worthy of his hirer? Furthermore, if everyone was to be given the exact same allotment, why should anyone break their backside or put forth anything beyond minimal effort?
Isn’t griping about people’s griping itself a form of griping? Interesting when a pewfiller makes a negative observation the verbalization is condemned as “complaining”, “bickering”, or “murmuring.” However, when such pronouncements are enunciated from behind a pulpit, they are categorized as the “sharing of a concern” or “admonition”. Average Christians are told to keep their innermost thoughts and concerns to themselves unless they are confirmation about how peachy-keen everything is. They are then reamed a new one if they fail to articulate sufficiently incriminating confessions during the intelligence gathering exercise known as the taking of prayer requests.
If the Southern Baptist Convention is posting articles in Spanish not simultaneously translated into English, how do we not know that these are not postings on how to eliminate White people and English speaking Americans? Think I’m crazy? Often Yasir Arafat would brownnose in the name of peace in English while continuing in his Arabic tirades how it was his intentions to drive the Jews of Israel into the sea.
What Is The Southern Baptist Convention Concealing From Its Members That Cannot Be Posted In English?
You either post it in English also or you don't post it. Bet those old English speaking GRINGOS are still expected to EMPTY THEIR POCKETS INTO THE COLLECTION PLATE!!!!
Click On The Healdine
Saturday, September 06, 2014
Friday, September 05, 2014
Homeschool activist Kevin Swanson in a 9/2014 broadcast suggested that Christian civilization might stand a better chance after America's collapse. But by that does he mean a generalized Christianity that respects economic liberty, private property, and individual theological conscience? Because often in environments characterized by profound social upheaval it is the most doctrinally strident expressions of a faith or creed that ends up imposing its peculiarities not through reasoned persuasion but rather through the force of violence.
Contrary to a suggestion of what might be done to reform America, literal 24 hour around the clock prayer vigils are not required. Aren't such gestures more the worship of prayer rather than the One that prayer is supposed to be directed towards? Is God such an egomaniac that He is going to refuse to grant national revival or restoration unless he is constantly spoken to during those hours He has designed most to be sleeping through? Are around the clock prayer vigils so much about the God of Heaven or the finite human beings organizing such spectacles?
Technically, the Incredible Hulk should be the last character Marvel ought to include in its bullying public awareness campaign. The decision makes about as much sense as utilizing the Punisher to advance the cause of gun control. In a number of storylines over the years, the Hulk has been little more than a bully. In his rampages, he has flattened entire towns. Both the U.S. military and SHIELD have had units dedicated solely to the purpose of containing that gama-powered menace.
Thursday, September 04, 2014
Is Chief Southern Baptist Missionary More Eager To Bash America Than Convert The Heathen?
The pastor is also author of “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream”.
A description of the tome at Amazon.com reads, “It's easy for the American Christian to forget how Jesus said how his followers would actually live...They would, he [Jesus] said , leave behind security, money, even family for him.”
Here we go with yet another attempt to use missions not so much as a methodology to bring those in other lands to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ but rather as a pretext to bash the American way of life.
For how are those things listed above: security, money, convenience, and family any different than what the inhabitants of nearly every other country on earth desire?
If one does not consider security all that important, perhaps one should be willing to exchange places with the persecuted and slaughtered Christian populations of Iraq and Syria.
Without money and security, it is doubtful that Rev. Platt would have wiggled his way into a megachurch pastorate nor American's rich enough to purchase his reflectively narcissistic manifestos.
God has indeed blessed America with an abundance of these things that have enabled Pastor Platt to become something of a celebrity in Evangelical Christian circles but which he begrudges the remainder of his fellow countrymen and coreligionists.
Is there a reason why we must flagellate ourselves in shame because of what God has given us?
For example, on the list it is insinuated that loyalty to family even when they are not tempting you towards things forbidden by God is not so much a strength but rather a weakness.
Yet the very same leftwing religionists that applaud the renunciation of bourgeoisie values insist that we must embrace nearly every illegal that pours across the border because these new arrivals are such family oriented people (even though the relationship arrangement being admired is not so much pro-child as it is the mother being afraid to cut off carnal access whenever daddy comes home sauced three sheets to the wind).
Interestingly, most of the migrants pour here for the same things we are supposed to be wracked with guilt over like Phil Donahue for possessing.
In his acceptance of the presidency of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board (a body found nowhere in Scripture if one is going to argue how we as Christians could lead more spiritually meritorious lives if we were more willing to embrace penury and destitution), “We talk all the time at Brook Hill [the church Platt pastors] about laying down a blank check with out lives, with no strings attached, willing to go wherever He leads, give whatever He asks, and do whatever He commands in order to make His glory known among the nations.”
And that is absolutely correct.
However, that blank check is to be written out to God, not so much the prelates and functionaries operating in His name through the organized church.
As Ann Coulter quipped, how come no one can serve God in America anymore?
It is about time religious leaders stop bashing those in America leading the perfectly ordinary lives that keep the mundane operations of a complex society functioning so robustly that there exists sufficient leisure time for a particular class to arise that enjoys nothing more than to wallow in this kind of existential criticism.
By Frederick Meekins
After saying that he intended to destroy ISIS, President Obama clarified that what he really meant was to manage the ISIS problem. So in saying that he intends to manage the health care system and the U.S. economy, what President Obama really means is that he intends to destroy the health care system and the U.S. economy.
Wednesday, September 03, 2014
Tuesday, September 02, 2014
A pastor assured that a difference of opinion is not necessarily wrong. Does that include when there is a difference of opinion over matters that are not clearly discussed in the Scriptures but over which the pastor not only hands down pronouncements as if they were but stops just short of calling down divine retribution upon those questioning these opinions?
A somewhat prominent homeschool ministry is suggesting that churches should assume a more direct role in the care of the elderly. So what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the disbursement of these provisions won’t be manipulated in a form of doctrinal coercion? For example, would a church refuse to provide granny with her heart medication unless she agrees to no longer wear slacks or toss out the Jesus painting hanging in her room if she belongs to a particularly legalistic congregation? Likewise, in such a world, what is to prevent the elderly from joining a church not because it is a reflection of their theology but rather because it is more generous and lenient in terms of its charitable goodies?
A somewhat prominent homeschool ministry is suggesting that the children of the elderly ought to be the ones responsible financially for their ageing parents and required to plan accordingly. They can do so by setting aside a significant portion of their tithe dollar that would have otherwise gone to institutionalized churches or the foreign mission field. Why not? Throughout this podcast discussion, one of the Biblical texts emphasized was James 1:27, admonishing that true and pure religion is that which cares for widows and orphans in their distress. Nowhere does the passage say anything about these funds having to be funneled through denominational middlemen that claim their cut for services rendered. Why can’t assisting your own elderly be some of that overlooked serving God in America asked about by Ann Coulter? Why does it only count for God when the helping hand is extended beyond your own family and especially into the slums of the Third World?
A Facebook meme depicts predestination as a railway track one rides along. The advocate of free will and choice is pictured as riding along in a coal car, mistakenly holding a map detailing the numerous paths which the individual can decide to follow. If that is the illustration one desires to believe in and promote, what one is saying is that God alone is at fault for what ultimately becomes of the individual that has no control over anything whatsoever. For example, using the train track as the paradigm, should this coal car over which the individual can exert no influence whatsoever derails with the passenger being profoundly injured, what the proponents of the illustration are saying is that the passenger is at fault rather than the one that laid the track and sent the car careening towards the destination. Likewise, if the individual cannot do anything whatsoever to alter the destination at the end of the track, there really is no reason after all to tell them beforehand where it is that they are headed.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
What Is Eastern Orthodoxy?
Friday, August 29, 2014
Jerry Brown Announces The Collapse Of The United States To Thunderous Applause
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Pastor Would Make Church Membership More Like Prison Sentence
But what if an individual can find a church of comparable teaching that is a better subjective or existential fit?
Why should someone in the name of an outdated understanding of ecclesiastical identity renounce other components of overall well being that could increase one's comprehensive quality of life such as companionship and opportunity?
Many of these rinkydink congregations rank among the same ones that would bash an individual for going to another church for “selfish” reasons and then turn around and slug even harder with the other rhetorical fist these same souls not married by the age of 25 despite there being no one appealing in the congregation or if the person does nothing more than fill a pew in a church where there is only one Sunday school class that the pastor sits in on to shout down anyone that might raise a sincere question or differing perspective still within the parameters of Biblical acceptability.
In this sermon on church membership and separation, Pastor Dykstra insisted that the Christian is obligated to hold formalized membership in a local congregation.
He then proceeded to argue that church membership should be viewed like marriage.
However, nowhere in Scripture is one obligated to be yoked to a human spouse.
If anything, the Bible lists both the glories and downfalls of both the single and married states, allowing the individual to select for themselves the path that they believe will minimize the inevitable miseries of this life while attempting to maximize its fleeting pleasures.
In continuing the marriage analogy, Rev. Dykstra suggested that the ability to pick up and leave a church is a moral outrage comparable to no fault divorce.
Would pastors holding to such an ecclesiology prefer the dissatisfied and disenchanted just remain in the congregation and drag the whole vibe down?
Even more disturbing is the insinuation that one cannot leave without deliberate or explicit fault being assigned.
So if these ecclesiastical potentates had their way, would they smear you with some kind of mark akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter where no other church would ever take you in?
So be it.
What is to prevent the clerically dispossessed from banding together to establish their own churches?
And what if these loose associations began bearing spiritual fruit?
In the idealized theocracy or theonomy, would establishmentarian denominations use the weight of law and the use of force commonly referred to as violence inherent to the enforcement of such to destroy these fellowships?
If so, what makes those holding to such a position any better than the worst of the Medieval papalists that those of the extreme Reformist perspective spend an inordinate amount of time railing against?
In the sermon, Pastor Dykstra mentioned a sect from the time of the Reformation known as the Nicodemites, a reference to the influential Pharisee that came to Jesus who, though sincerely curious, came to Jesus in the middle of the night so as not to endanger his status and position as a member of the Sanhedrin.
This label was used to describe those drawn to the claims of the Reformed message but who were reluctant to embrace this interpretation of the Gospel for fear of leaving behind the modalities of worship and religious expression they had known their entire lives.
The term was intended to be applied condescendingly.
However, as conveyed in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, one does not get the impression that Jesus was irritated with Nicodemus for coming to Him secretively indicating potential ambivalence to the implications embracing the Messianic claims would have in the life of such a foremost Jewish voice.
Rev. Dykstra claims the label accurately describes those that waffle as to what congregation it is that they actually want to be a part of.
He goes on to assert that, when one leaves a particular church, what you are saying is that you no longer want to fellowship with the saints there.
It says nothing of the sort.
What about those that stay in the church and get their rearends so high up on their shoulders that they will no longer have anything to do with those that could have their spiritual needs better fulfilled elsewhere?
You don't need the pastor's permission to remain someone's friend.
If you are afraid that remaining friends with someone that has left the church but otherwise still walking in the faith will set minister off, other than a cordial but distance greeting each Sunday, DON'T TELL THE MINISTER THAT YOU ARE STILL THEIR FRIEND.
The world is in a profound state of turmoil and decline.
Instead of complaining about how often a particular visitor is or is not there and whether or not they have agreed to a commitment sufficiently arduous to placate the rigors of the professional religionist, perhaps it might be more prudent to convey the basics of salvation and moral living in the brief time that any particular soul might be brought into contact with a specific congregation.
By Frederick Meekins
Contrary to a Facebook post by Howard Kurtz, how is Burger King legally moving its operations to another jurisdiction “avoiding taxes”? Does he also hold that the Supreme Court was correct in remanding Dredd Scott to the custody of his master? Should the geezers that move to Florida be accused of finagling their way out of snow removal duty?
In a sermon titled “The Gospel Demands Sacrifice” posted on Youtube, the President of the Southern Baptist International Missions Board criticized Christians that understand our eternal reward as Heaven rather than the fullness of Christ. This condemnation was enunciated because of this exegete’s aversion to OTHER people possessing what he dismisses as stuff (in other words the property imperative). However, we are beings created to occupy space and in constant need of a plethora of things to keep that embodied existence ongoing. It is further reinforced that if we do not reach Heaven as our destination in the Afterlife, that our eternity will be one of unending agony in the most painful ways in which we can possible conceive. If that is how we have been deliberately designed by our Creator and what He has decided to reveal to us regarding the comprehensive metaphysical reality, is this response really something we should be chastised over? Perhaps this pastor’s underlying issue is that we retain a sense of individuality once this life is completed rather than an existential obliteration in a Nirvana-like state he terms “the fullness of Christ”.
Note something will you. Pastors are often fond of the text that our love for Christ should be so intense that our love for family should look like hate in comparison. But never in this exposition do they have backbone to preach that our devotion to Christ should be so singular that our love for the organized church in comparison to that of her Christ should also look like hate.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Should Churches Purge Members That Minister Beyond Denominational Limitations?
Now would that be a punishment or a reward to be forced off this sinking denominational ship?
The bishop justifies such a hardline position because, “It is an affront to those who have worked hard, studying many years in seminary, spending much money, making many personal sacrifices when others, maybe unknowingly, seek ordinations in an easy, anonymous way.”
One will note that no where in the explanation is God or Christ even mentioned.
That is because, other than the basic criteria listed in Scripture, He leaves it up to the individual to follow the path that is best suited to their own particular calling.
The United Methodist Church is only one expression of the broader Bride of Christ.
Those employed by a United Methodist Church or seeking a career in such might have to abide by the rules that the denomination establishes to determine who it allows to minister as part of its brand.
However, their exists a Christan world beyond this one principality within the larger kingdom.
So long as someone holding one of these alternative ordinations does not try to seize control of a United Methodist Church, they should use the credential to minister in any way possible that is open to them.
The average member is only in church between one and maybe three hours per week.
If someone in the remaining hours of the week wants to fill that time going about their Father's work and they for the most part profess the same basic theological and philosophical worldview as you do, it is the epitome of arrogance for you to punish them simply because they don't hold a certificate with your seal of approval emblazoned upon it.
Any church that seeks to control those not on the official payroll or those that have not agreed to the parameters of ministry within a specific denomination has come dangerously close to elevating the organizational structure above the Christ that it claims to worship.
About the best thing that could possibly happen to someone that looses their membership over such a petty and minuscule offense for simply feeling a call to ministry that ecclesiastical elites fail to recognize is to set up some kind of Methodist or Wesleyan-style church of their own.
It might not be what they have been accustomed to, however, given that these are generic theological labels or categories, should you decide to apply them along with a few distinct modifiers to create a somewhat unique variation on the given theme, there really isn't much that religious power brokers can do to stop you
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 25, 2014
Albert Mohler suggests that Christians should suspend judgment and “lead with empathy” in regards to the Ferguson, Missouri insurgency. This same theologian is certainly quick to judge young Christians not married by 23 years of age who otherwise keep their pants on and don’t pop out a litany of bastards. But church youth aren’t usually the kind to burn things to the ground when not lavished with an increasing number of government handouts.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Southern Baptists Eager To Toss Singles Into Hellfire Turn Blind Eye To Tattoos
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Southern Baptists Descend Into Deeper Religious Fanaticism
Apparently, little consideration is to be given as to whether or not the couple can actually afford to do so.
Speaking in defense of the decree to USA Tolday, Pastor Jon Akin of Lebanon, Tennessee said of the Southern Baptist Convention’s previous teaching before the fanatics took over that a couple should wait to marry until they have reached a level of financial security, “What we've communicated to our young people is finances are more important than sexual sin, and the Bible seems to say the exact opposite of that."
The previous doctrine does nothing of the sort.
If the pastor does not have the guts to put the fear of God in the youth regarding venereal diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and shattered hearts, that is not the fault of delaying gratification.
And if the youngsters can’t keep it in their pants until they can afford a down payment or a security deposit, that is their own fault.
Contrary to beatnik ditties, you do need more than love.
So who is supposed to provide for these whelps?
I guess we are expected to dig into our pockets, as we are in regards to the missionaries to the pygmies, and empty the contents of our wallets to finance yet additional foolhardy undertakings.
And as in the case of Ann Coulter, these fanatics will likely damn to the edge of Hell anyone suggesting that those wanting to marry should pay their own way in life.
By Frederick Meekins