Friday, October 31
Thursday, October 30
Wednesday, October 29
That is because it is ultimately Christ that delivers the victory.
And does that include maladies that were once considered demonic in origin such as epilepsy or schizophrenia?
It might be the role of the minister to provide prayer in the resolution of these afflictions as well.
But if the cause of the illness lies in the realm of the biologically physiological, does not Christ also work through a physician for the alleviation of that variety of suffering?
By Frederick Meekins
Comments crossing over the line into profanity would not be publicly acceptable.
But isn't there a place for good old fashioned judgment and shame?
This student wasn't caught in his own home crossdressing.
If this behavior is not to be subject to appropriate condemnation, is it really all that wrong to begin with?
How do we know that the lad in question really identifies as a woman or simply had an overwhelming compulsion to view a lush, emerging bosom?
If a boy wiggled his way into the girls changing area for that reason would Christian broadcasters be fumbling all over themselves verbally in regards to a school system that applauded such deviancy?
Yet isn't that lewdness less morally depraved than someone so obsessed with the body of the opposite gender that they are willing to have themselves mutilated in pursuit of such lust?
By Frederick Meekins
The author writes, “In short, a Christianity without hell would be a fearless, trusting, loving, divinely inspired source of good in the world.”
But it must asked, what then is the point?
For if either we all get to Heaven or Heaven is as nonexistent as this mythologized Hell, why bother going out of one's way to consider the claims of the Gospel message or to abide by the basic rigors of Biblical revelation?
As much as these progressives brainwashed to oppose the notion of enlightened are loathe to admit it, there are few motivators greater than an aversion to pain and suffering.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 28
Monday, October 27
So does that include pastors that can't keep their hands off the teen girls (and shockingly even the teen boys these days) in the congregation?
Since a shockingly high number of these incidents now occur in the ranks of Independent Baptist Churches now that this profound evil has burned its way through the Roman Catholicism, to avoid the appearance of evil and to be separate from these unclean things, does that mean the Christian ought to avoid independent fundamental Baptist churches for the sake of their testimonies as well?
In their annual tirades against Halloween, often aging ministers excuse their past participation in this celebration by insisting that the confectionary collection ritual did not mean back then what it does today.
To justify not only their abstention from the holiday but calling into question the profession of faith of any Christian caught participating as well, often ghastly atrocities that may or may not have actually taken place are elaborated as the sources from which these customs are alleged to have originated.
So unless there has been some kind of chronometric discombobulation where the time stream has become unhinged, even if these ministers are on the declining side of fifty in the their onward perambulation towards the century mark, these pulpiteers are still younger than the evils that they are referencing.
To get around the question that pops into the mind of the discerning of why it was acceptable for the Christian youth of fifty or sixty years ago to Trick Or Treat but a transgression bordering on the unpardonable for the youth of today to participate in the same form of merriment, the geezers at Southwest Radio Ministries concocted a novel but logically questionable justification..
Back when they were wee tots, America was a Judeo-Christian nation.
However, going door to door to collect candy (even if the local preacher doesn't place his hands where he has no business and will land him on an offender registry) will mentally warp the youth of today in these philosophically confused times.
It is still never satisfactorily explained how carving a pumpkin or cavorting about in an amusing but tasteful costume will cause one to apostatize from the faith later down the road.
It seems ministers and clergy that admit to having done one thing still not sounding very repentant about it while demanding another of those under their teaching would be the greater threat of tempting people away from the faith.
It has been suggested that, instead of handing out candy for Halloween, that the Christian should give out Gospel tracts.
But if Halloween in general and Trick Or Treat in particular are so inherently evil, applying this kind of logic to another setting, would placing a gospel tract into an exotic dancer's thong rather than dollar bills justify attendance at a strip club?
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, October 25
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
Wednesday, October 22
Tuesday, October 21
A documentary about the band Hillsong scheduled to be shown in theaters assures that the musicians have not been changed by the world. Given than the musicians depicted in the trailer look like beatnik slobs to begin with, they were probably already living like the world to begin with.
Sunday, October 19
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
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
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?
Wednesday, October 15
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
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
Sunday, October 12
Click On The Headline
Friday, October 10
Wednesday, October 8
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.
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 7
Monday, October 6
Sunday, October 5
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 3
Thursday, October 2
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