Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. He holds a BS from the University of Maryland in Political Science/History and a MA in Apologetics & Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary. Frederick holds a Doctor of Practical Theology through the Master's Graduate School Of Divinity in Evansville, Indiana. Dr. Meekins is pursuing a Ph.D. in Apologetics through Newburgh Theological Seminary.

Sunday, April 26

Cultural Apologist Apparently Values That Of Africa Over America

Pastor Voddie Bachaum is fleeing to Africa on the grounds of the spiritual despair plaguing much of that continent.

Things going so well here that a minister considering cultural apologetics as one of his areas of expertise left with nothing to do?

Marriage has gone back to being solely between a man and a woman?

Gays quietly keeping their proclivities to themselves as a result of good old fashioned shame?

The vast majority of children being born to married couples?

And those that aren't either adopted into loving families or at least raised by biological parents that love the children enough to maintain a facade in front of the child that they tolerate each other and can get along civilly?

Rap music shifted its lyrics now to extol a lifestyle of sober frugality and personal industry?

In detailing his missionary expedition to Africa, pastor and cultural apologist Voddie Baucham points out that he is not a theological renegade but is rather being sent from his local church to a local church.

Extrapolating from that logic, does that mean in our own contexts that the hands (or perhaps more importantly the tongue) of the average believer is tied unless church authorities allow you to evangelize?

From that presupposiition, it seems that it is illegitimate to conduct missions or evangelism as a form of God's work apart from the approval of one's church.

Baucham identifies himself as a part of the Reformed movement.

A fundamental perspective of that particular theological outlook constricts the separation between secular and sacred work to the point where that the division is nearly nonexistent.

Therefore, if all work is God's work, should the church have veto power regarding what profession the individual decides to pursue or if they go into business on the path of entrepreneurship?

If one is going out as a missionary in the name of a particular congregation, that is one thing and you should be answerable to their authority as an employee.

However, if you are conducting outreach under the terms of the general mandate where one is essentially admonished to make a nuisance of oneself by interjecting religion into the workplace and in passing conversations with the neighbors, on what grounds do you condemn if a believer decides to share the Gospel down the street or halfway around the world?

In this sermon justifying his self-imposed exile to Africa, Voddie Baucham criticized men that pursue seminary education in general and in particular those that use that education to find employment at another church without the approval or oversight of what would be categorized as the student's home church.

But is it really the place of the church to deny an individual's access to knowledge?

For that is a mindset characterizing Gnostic-oriented sects such as Mormonism and Freemasonry.

The Christian position is that knowledge should be available to anyone willing to pursue it.

Other than a character reference to assure that the applicant has not been caught with hands on little children, on other men's wives, or in the collection plate, should a single church have that much sway over your ecclesiastical career prospects or ministry opportunities?

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, April 22

Regarding Voddie Baucham’s move to Africa. If he has a job there, does that mean the rest of us should get online and beg for money when we want to move to another area?

On an episode of Generations Radio in which Adam McManus substituted as host, a Rushdoonyian author chastised the church for failing to heed the call of Douglas MacArthur to evangelize Japan following World War II. But if we are to hold to a Calvinist soteriology that the only ones saved are the ones God wants saved, isn’t that therefore God’s fault? Furthermore, on what grounds do you condemn believers who at the time might have been pursuing other paths God intended for their lives? I don’t exactly recall MacArthur dedicating his life to missions in the Pacific Rim after he was put in his place for insubordination by Truman. Why is it we are expected to neglect the children and elderly here in favor of foreign ones overseas?

Catholics Call For Removal Of Archbishop Insisting Catholic Education Ought To Be Catholic

Click On The Headline

Depraved Seminarian Hypothesizes Jesus Was Transsexual

Click On The Headline

To What Extent Should A Child Be Compelled To Surrender Property To Those To Whom They Feel No Compulsion?

A Christianity Today article ponders to what extent should a child be compelled to share their possessions with those to whom they do not feel such a desire.

This is a valid concern.

One might say my grandparents were, literally, generous to a fault.

From an era in which one seldom questioned authority if you wanted to be considered an acceptable Christian, they would often pressure my mom to give away what few possessions that their borderline poverty family could afford.

To this day, this still hurts my mom emotionally when she is feeling down.

Especially when so many of those this generosity was extended to ended up not giving the proverbial damn about either my grandparents or my mother.

It is refreshing to see Christianity Today will still publish a rare conservative perspective occasionally.

Tuesday, April 21

A Review Of “Why I Am Not A Christian” By Bertrand Russell

Without a doubt, Bertrand Russell stands as one of the most formidable minds of the modern era. Through his efforts with Alfred North Whitehead in “Principia Mathematica”, Russell further elaborated the relationship between mathematics and deductive logic. Russell's endeavors, however, were not confined to complex philosophical treatises having little influence outside of academic circles. Russell's work spanned the intellectual spectrum, ranging from works on the history of philosophy to international relations and political theory. Russell even produced newspaper articles for mass consumption. But despite his prolific intellectual output, Russell did not apply his mathematician's logic and objectivity to much of his non-scientific thought, especially in the area of religion as embodied by his work “Why I Am Not A Christian”.

Instead of addressing a single topic throughout the entire work, “Why I Am Not A Christian” is a collection of articles and essays addressing Russell's position on religious matters in general and issues regarding Christianity in particular. Proverbs 23:7 says, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so he is.” Many times influential voices speaking in the opinion-molding institutions of academia and media contend that one's views on religion do not necessarily impact other areas of existence such as the political or the sociological. Scripture teaches that this popular opinion is incorrect. However, the Bible is not readily accepted by those arguing for the mentioned opinion. Even though the work argues against the traditional positions of Christianity, the power of “Why I Am Not A Christian” resides in how it links one's views regarding religion with one's beliefs about society and the world despite the author's attempt to argue otherwise.

Russell's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) found their basis in his position that the theistic proofs are not as conclusive as believers make them out to be. When asked what he would say if confronted by the Creator at his death, Russell said he would respond by saying, “God! Why did you make evidence of your existence so insufficient?”

In “Why I Am Not A Christian”, Russell proceeds to critique each of these arguments. None of them escape his scathing scrutiny. Of the argument from the First Cause, Russell remarks that, if everything must have a cause, then God cannot be the uncaused cause by those following in the intellectual lineage of Aquinas. Russell claims that this argument actually results in an endless digression of creators begetting creators much like those mythological cosmologies where the Earth rests atop an elephant resting atop a tortoise etc. etc (7).

From the outset, Russell argues from faulty notions. According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, in a thoroughly naturalistic context something cannot come from nothing. But by its definition, a noncontingent being does not require a cause since its existence is complete in itself (289). Only finite contingent beings require a cause.

The next proofs tackled by Russell are the arguments for the existence of God from the evidence of creation. Russell argues that, in the light of Einsteinian relativity, the Newtonian system of natural law is not as binding upon the universe as originally thought. Therefore, these scientific principles cannot be used to argue for the existence of a rational creator. However, one could turn the tables on Russell and point out that the revelations of Einsteinian physics actually provide a better testimony to the existence of God than even the previous Newtonian model.

According to Russell, natural law is nothing more than statistical averages resulting from the laws of chance (Russell, 8). John Warwick Montgomery in “Faith Founded On Fact” rebuts Russell's position by pointing out that the Einsteinian and quantum paradigms actually allow for miracles while maintaining that an ordered universe exists. In those systems attempting to account for the totality of the physical universe, it is God who keeps the universe from instantaneously dissolving into the chaos of individual atoms flying off into their own paths and who can rearrange the normal operations of reality when doing so suits His greater glory such as turning water into wine and resurrecting the dead (Montgomery, 43).

Besides drawing faulty conclusions regarding the validity of the theistic proofs, Russell errs as to their purpose as well. Russell is correct in pointing out that these arguments do leave room for some doubt. Yet this can be said about any other linguistically synthetic proposition about the world as well.

If one wants to get really nit-picky about the matter, one could doubt whether Bertrand Russell himself even existed since the Analysts were not above doubting the veracity of historical knowledge. As much as it might irritate the so-called “scientific mind”, one cannot exist without exercising some degree and kind of faith.

The theistic proofs can serve as a guide pointing towards faith or as a mechanism to help rationally clarify it. They do not properly serve as a replacement for it. Norman Geisler points out that one ought not to believe in God because of the theistic proofs. Rather, the theistic proofs provide one with a basis to reasonably assert that God exists (Geisler, 269).

Having taken on the first person of the triune Godhead, Russell turns his sites onto the second, the Lord Jesus Christ. To his perverse credit in a perverse sort way, Russell does not hind behind the phony religiosity of the liberal and the modernist which states, “Jesus was a good teacher, but...”

Russell openly wonders whether or not Christ even existed. And even if He did, Russell asserts, Jesus is far from being the greatest among human teachers as asserted by the likes of the Unitarians and the New Age movement. At best, according to Russell's scorecard, Jesus comes in at a distant third behind Socrates and Buddha (16). According to Russell, Christ's greatest flaw was His belief in the reality of Hell and His condemnation of those who would not heed the Messiah's call. Socrates provides a superior moral example since Socrates did not verbally castigate his detractors (Russell, 17).

Russell's disdain for those believing in the reality of Hell exposes his own bias rather than prove his dedication to the ideas of truth that he invokes elsewhere to undermine the claims of religious faith. In appraising the idea of Hell, Russell does not give much consideration to the realm of eternal damnation, instead dismissing the concept as a cruel idea (18). But if Hell is real, is not Christ doing the proper thing in warning how such a terrible fate might be avoided? Employing Russell's line of reasoning, it becomes cruel to chastise someone standing under a tall tree with a piece of sheet metal during a thunderstorm since such an exhortation also warns of the dire consequences likely to result from such foolish behavior.

But while Russell questions the historicity of Jesus Christ, he readily accepts that of Buddha even though Christ is perhaps the best documented figure of ancient history. The first accounts of Buddha appear nearly 500 years after the death of that particular religious figure. Those regarding Jesus appear within the first several decades following the Crucifixion.

Allegedly having removed God from His thrown as sovereign of the universe, Russell proceeds to lay out what he does believe primarily in the chapter titled “What I Believe”. Replacing religion as the tool by which man approaches the world, Russell would have man utilize science to determine meaning, reducing the totality of reality to that of mere physics (50). To Russell, even thought is nothing more than the chemical components and electrical impulses arising from the brain's physical composition.

Yet despite believing the material world to be ultimate, Russell saw no problem with making pronouncements regarding the areas of life transcending the material base such as ethics and social organization. Russell boldly states in italicized print for all to read, “The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge (56).” However, elsewhere in the very same chapter, Russell says, “...nature in itself is neutral, neither good nor bad (55).”

If humanity is nothing more than the sum of the physical composition of the species, it is then inappropriate to elaborate a theory of morality. Morality poured into such a naturalistic crucible becomes nothing more than individual personal preferences, which do seem to serve as Russell's source of moral reasoning. According to Russell, traditional morality is based upon cruelty and ignorance. However, according to John Frame in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God”, to invoke the values of love and knowledge (even when done so to undermine traditional conceptions of virtue) is to inadvertently defend the divinely established order of creation traditional moral values rests upon in the first place since such values are only desirable if a divinely created hierarchy exists (93-102).

Ultimately, one cannot craft a system of ethics solely based on science legitimately defined as science. At best, science can only assess and clarify the situations to which moral principles must be applied. To say that science is the source of moral values is to argue for a scientism or a naturalism as loaded with as many conceptual presuppositions as any theistic creed.

One can base one's ethical beliefs on the record of Scripture, which II Timothy 3:16 says is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for corrections, and for instruction in righteousness. Or, one can operate under man's own unaided reason, which is finite, corruptible, and known to change every five to ten years subject to FDA approval. History reveals which has the far better track record.

Unlike many Christians who do not take their worldview outside the church sanctuary or seminary classroom, Bertrand Russell was not one content to keep his philosophy and ideology confined to the level of an academic exercise. In terms of political activism, this was manifested by his vocal opposition to the nuclear diplomacy engaged in by both the United States and the Soviet Union during the tensest days of the Cold War.

However, the application of Russell's worldview did not always lead him to pursue admirable yet perhaps naive goals such as world peace. In fact, Presbyterian minister D.James Kennedy suggests in “Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul” that Russell may have formulated his philosophical position regarding religious matters as a justification for his erotic proclivities, the lanky intellectual having actually had numerous adulterous relationships including philanderous escapades with the daughters of friends and colleagues (173). In fact, Russell social views derived from his foundational assumptions sparked considerable controversy. After all, it was not his “Principia Mathematica” that cost him a professorship at the City College of New York but rather his views regarding marriage and personal morality.

Seeing man soley as the product of natural processes and merely as a highly evolved animal, Russell's views regarding human intimacy and procreation reflect this sentiment. According to Russell, much of traditional morality --- especially that dealing with sexual ethics --- is based upon superstition. In fact, Russell believes that it would be beneficial for society and family life if the traditional understanding of monogamous, life-long, God-ordained marriage was openly violated. In these matters, Russell sounds much like a contemporary Planned Parenthood operative or public school sex educator. For example, Russell argues for no-fault divorce, unhampered sexual promiscuity provided children do not result from such illicit unions, and for temporary trial marriages not unlike the phenomena of cohabitation (Russell, 168-178).

Despite his attempts to expand human freedom and happiness in regards to these matters, Russell's proposals are in reality prescriptions for heartache and disaster. The segment of society sustaining the highest number of casualties in the sexual revolution are the young that Russell had hoped to liberate. According to syndicated columnist Cal Thomas in “The Death Of Ethics In America”, by the age of twenty-one 81% of unmarried males and 60% of unmarried females have had sexual intercourse. However, such carnal stimulation is not necessarily the fulfilling personal growth opportunity Russell claimed it would be.

Venereal diseases rank as the number one form of communicable illness in the United States. And the varieties of this pestilence prevalent today do not always react as well to penicillin as those ravaging the morally deviant of Professor Russell's day (Thomas, 92). Those engaging in Dr. Russell's trial marriages --- what use to be referred to as living in sin --- fare little better. Those participating in such arrangements on average go on to experience higher levels of marital discord and incidents of divorce.

God did not establish the regulations regarding human intimacy in order to rain on everybody's parade. These rules were promulgated in order to bring about the maximum degree of individual well-being and personal happiness. Matthew 19:5 says, “For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. Hebrews 13:4 adds, “Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

To his credit and the shame of the church, Russell does note how women have over the course of history often endured oppressive marriages many times under the sanction and justification of misunderstood interpretations regarding marital submission. However, any cruelty justified under this command is a misinterpretation of the passage's true intent. In Ephesians 5:25, just two verses away from the famous Scripture misused as an excuse for all manner of masculine cruelty, the Bible clearly reads, “Husbands, love your wives even as Christ loved the church.” This love is to be a sacrificial and gentle love; not the decree of a tyrant even though the husband is the king of the house. Studies indicate that, in reality, marriage is far safer for women than the live-in arrangements advocated by Russell under the euphemism of temporary marriage.

Having dismissed the traditional family and religion (both organized and otherwise) as impediments to humanity's progress, Russell puts his hope for the betterment of mankind in the state. Rather than punish individuals committing sins so heinous that they infringe upon the well-being of society, the state is to manipulate human behavior in order to bring about desired outcomes beneficial to the greater community. In fact, according to Russell, sin defined as an action committed by an individual in defiance of the universal moral order as established by an omnipotent creator does not exist. Sin is merely that which is disliked by those controlling education (159).

Even those committing the most heinous deeds are not beyond the pale of psychological reprogramming or pity much like that lavished upon a wayward dog that cannot help scratching up the furniture. To bring about his scientific utopia, the state would be granted expansive powers in even those most private aspects of existence. For example, Russell's state would go so far as to decree that children must be confiscated from their parents and raised by trained statist experts (Russell, 163).

Russell also suffers from the same paradox afflicting Marx and other socialists in that Russell desires to shrink the power of the state while at the same time dramatically increasing it. While wanting to put economic power into the hands of workers through a system of guilds and syndicates, Russell also sought to establish a world state having a monopoly on the use of force as well as establish guaranteed incomes and the human breeding restrictions mentioned earlier.

The issues raised by Russell's political opinions still possess relevance today with much of contemporary civic discourse an ongoing debate regarding the very kinds of policies advocated by Russell and his leftwing associates. F.A. Hayek noted in “The Road To Serfdom” that, while liberals might have naive but benevolent intentions behind their social engineering proposals, these ultimately require more bloodthirsty totalitarians or others of a similar vain lacking concern for innate human freedoms and constitutional liberties. Even Russell admits that much of human liberty is the result of the interplay between church and state (185). What then would result should the influence be nullified as Russell proposes?

Reflecting upon Russell's proposal of state-run childcare, it is highly doubtful whether or not such a program could be implemented without a great deal of bloodshed or a massive multi-generational conspiracy such as Hillary Clinton's it takes a village mentality and the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of The Child. Programs and policy outlooks such as these seek to alter the fundamental nature of the family primarily through bureaucratic stealth and covert legislative manipulation. Realizing that the proclivities towards marriage and family ran so deeply in the human psyche, even the Soviets had to back off their plank to so openly undermine the oldest of human institutions as part of their diabolical agenda.

And while the wars plaguing mankind are deplorable, the geopolitical landscape allowing them to arise is still preferable to the global tyranny and persecution that would result from a planetary regime that would impose its iron will on any portion of the world refusing to heed its edicts and decrees. At least under the current world order, a small percentage of humanity is able to enjoy some measure of freedom until the Lord's Second Coming.

Contrary to what even the National Rifle Association claims, America's Founding Fathers did not draft the Second Amendment to protect skeet shooting and squirrel hunting. Instead, this constitutional provision established a sense of liberty by creating tension between freemen and the operatives of the state by implying violence could result should government authorities over step the confines of their legitimate powers. Something similar is true with a system of nation-states competing with one another, none of which can tyrannize all of mankind at one time.

By reading “Why I Am Not A Christian”, one is reminded that the current culture war besieging America did not begin with either the inaugurations of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. It is in fact decades and even centuries old. While setting out an agenda and its ideological justification, Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” also provides a glimpse into the cultural disputes of another era.

The final chapter of the book consists of an appendix detailing the court case that ultimately prevented Russell from obtaining a professorship of mathematical and scientific philosophy. Whether or not Russell's critics should have acted so vehemently is open to debate as (to utilize a phrase just employed) there is some virtue to settling things through “open debate” with each side detailing their merits and revealing the weaknesses in the arguments of their opponents. However, history has shown that the concerns raised by those opposed to Russell's appointment were based in legitimate fears.

Though Russell cannot bear sole guilt as much of that must also go to his colleagues sharing in his worldview of loose sex and paternalistic government, this philosophy has gained such prominence in social institutions such as education, entertainment, and even religion. Regard for the family and human life has deteriorated to such a degree that is has become regular to hear in news reports of former mailmen mowing down with machine guns their fellow employees (the act itself now referred to as “going postal”) or of prom queens killing their newborns between dances. The world has never been perfect since the expulsion from Eden, but seldom in history has there been times where such outright evil is openly justified by those in authority such as certain psychologists, elected officials, and media personalities.

Bertrand Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” will not stand as a classic regarding what is explicitly written upon the pages. For the highest rational principle appealed to is that the world should enshrine the thoughts and preferences of Bertrand Russell simply because they are the thoughts and utterances of Bertrand Russell. However, the message it propounds between the lines of each man serving as his own god ranks among the central apologetic challenges of this or any other era. The clear style and detectable fallacies found within the pages of Russell's “Why I Am Not A Christian” will prepare Christians to take on more sophisticated versions of these arguments wherever they might appear.

By Frederick Meekins

Singer Pushes Infanticide As Component Of Universal Healthcare

Click On The Headline

The Remaking Of A Modern Mind

Click ON The Headline

Obama Silent On Christians Tossed Overboard By Savage Sandheathens

Click On The Headline

Radical Homeschooler Insinuates You Are Obligated To Repent For Other People’s Homosexuality

Click On The Headline

Monday, April 20

Lutheranism 101: Church, Government & Pastors

Should Allegiance To Certain Church Movements Excuse Profound Moral Failings?

The following quote attributed to Jack Hyles was printed in a church bulletin: “The time consumed between the opportunity to do right and the doing of the right is often spent trying to justify doing wrong.”

A valid observation.

Sort of like the time Hyles concocted a convoluted doctrine not unlike that of Mormon celestial marriage to justify him spending more emotionally intimate time with the church secretary than his actual wife.

Then there was also the time Hyles summoned the deacons to the pulpit and had them vow before the congregation how these church officers were willing to take a bullet if so directed by the pastor.

Will the church bulletin be providing edifying Chesterton quotes in the upcoming weeks and months as well?

Likely not.

For the wisdom of this journalist will likely be disqualified for such an honor because of his ultimate conversion to Roman Catholicism.

For you see, in the brand of Christianity that celebrates ecclesiastical separation as something akin to a prime directive, it is not enough for a thinker to have enunciated an observation or proposition exuding truth.

Often, it is even more important that the intellectual under consideration hold membership in the right organizations and avoid contact with movements condemned as beyond a narrow pale of acceptability.

How else under the lofty identity of Fundamental Independent Baptist can one justify promoting a ministry that has profoundly harmed unnumbered throngs while likely numbering among history's reprobates some of the most gifted writers to ever contemplate the human condition?

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, April 16

Make A Joyful Noise To Irritate The Depraved

Click On The Headline

Should Church Members Submit To Pastoral Interrogations?

In an interview on Generation’s Radio, Albert Martin --- former pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey --- elaborated fondly that over the course of his ministry there that it was the practice to inflict upon the members of the congregation an annual inspection in their homes.

During this interrogation, he would gather intelligence as to the spiritual state of the occupants. His interlocutories would assess areas such devotional life, quality of marriage, and the extent to which the residents were “integrated” into the church.

And what if a church member refuses to allow a member of church leadership into their home?

So long as a member is not bedding someone other than their mate, leaving bruises on a spouse, or does not themselves instigate a request for assistance from the church, is the state of your marriage or what goes on in your home really any of the pastor’s business?

by Frederick Meekins

Vatican To Expand Carbon Footprint Expelling Gas In Favor Of Global Warming

Click On The Headline

Governor Stokes Jihadist Uprising In Iowa

Click On The Headline

Leftist Catholic Lush Chris Matthews Calls For Exclusion Of Conservative Evangelicals From American Politics

Click On The Headline

In a sermon, a pastor admonished that not only is one required to come to worship but that one must come in a spirit of Sabbath rest. Some people just can’t turn off their minds. Once again, would it rather be that people don’t show up at all?

Wednesday, April 15

Catholic Bioethicists Warn Of Transhumanism’s Assault Against Human Nature

Click On The Headline

Muslims Allowed To Defile Christian Church With Apostate Worship

Click On The Headline

In a sermon on Christian apathy, fanatic legalist Jason Cooley condemned the entire U.S. military over the actions of a few errant soldiers. Therefore, extrapolating the pastor’s logic, ought we to condemn the entire Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement for its errant sex crimes that are comparable to any Vatican debaucheries?

In a sermon, a pastor berated the congregation for not knowing where Zephaniah was in the Bible. Perhaps he would rather they never return to the church he pastors.

Catholic School Insists Depravity Must Be Whitewashed

Click On The Headline

Fanatic Legalist Damns American Service Personnel As Perverted Babykillers

Click On The Headline

Tuesday, April 14

Former Protestant Eagerly Surrenders Fate Of His Soul To Vatican Functionaries

Click On The Headline

Vatican Exorcists Issue Warning Regarding Seductive Vampires

Click On The Headline

In a chapel address, a pastor remarked to the assembled students about the Christian tendency to condemn fellow believers for behaviors and decisions that are not necessarily sins. But don’t many pick up a number of these peculiarities from the litany of regulations imposed upon them in their formative years in the Christian schools that they are expected to attend? If not, is the student going to be allowed to slide by if at this school if they smuggle a Harry Potter novel or even a G.I. Joe comic book were smuggled onto the campus?

In a chapel address at a Christian school uploaded onto SermonAudio.com, the pastor admonished that he did not want students giggling during what the minister considered the discussion of a mature topic. But if youngsters giggle during a topic that makes the students uncomfortable, shouldn’t that be considered a blessing that the pupils still possess a degree of innocence? For does not the Scripture lament those no longer able to blush?

Catholic Bishop Confesses He Didn’t Realize Pedophilia Was A Crime

Click On The Headline

In a chapel address at a Christian school uploaded onto SermonAudio.com, the pastor admonished that he did not want students giggling during what the minister considered the discussion of a mature topic. But if youngsters giggle during a topic that makes the students uncomfortable, shouldn’t that be considered a blessing that the pupils still possess a degree of innocence? For does not the Scripture lament those no longer able to blush?

Monday, April 13

False Teaching In The 21st Century Curch

So if we are to believe David Wilkerson had powers of precognition beyond deductive observation and analysis, why didn’t he foresee the traffic accident that took his life in a manner that could have prevented this tragedy?

So in analyzing the decline of Christianity in America, does Jim Bakker reflect upon the role he played in that?

In peddling survivalist rations, does Jim Bakker also intend to provide the firearms to prevent the theft of such provisions by rape gangs?

Interesting. In the 1980’s, Jim Bakker’s racket was resort hotel timeshares. Now it seems to be survivalist rations.

Jim Bakker Fascinated By Tom Horn's Vatican Warnings

Click On The Headline

Apostate Bishops Proclaim Sound Doctrine A Greater Threat To World Christendom Than Moral Depravity

Click On The Headline

Increasing Number Of Roman Catholics Insist God Moving The Church To Embrace Gay Marriage

Click On The Headline

Fanatic Homeschooler Equates Singles With Filthy Vagrants

Click On The Headline

Does The Head Of Southern Baptist Missions Travel Across The Country In Luxury Browbeating Congregations Regarding World Poverty?

Click On The Headline

Prolifers Insist Power Of Prayer Limited By Geography

Click On The Headline

Will those that have complained incessantly about Jesus and the Apostles being “too Anglo” in certain narrative Bible productions speak out about John the Beloved appearing as Black in the AD miniseries. I thought it was Simon of Cyrene before figuring it out.

Depraved Presbyterians Wallow In Infant Sacrifice

Click On The Headline

Wednesday, April 8

Should The Media Ignore Episcopal Scandals?

Click On The Headline

Will Walmart Security Goons Conduct Intelligence Gathering Operations Against Christian Employees?

Click On The Headline

Roman Catholic Bishop Evasive As To Whether Or Not He Endorses Traditional Conception Of Marriage

Click On The Headline

Will Christians Refusing To Hunger Strike Be Blamed For Depravity’s Advancement?

Click On The Headline

At the White House Easter Breakfast, President Obama verbalized his concern that a number of Christians comport themselves in a less than loving manner. At the numerous Islamic functions Obama is eager to commemorate, does he vocalize disappointment towards activist adherents of that particular religion committing numerous atrocities such as widespread decapitations and child rape? About the worst thing Christians have done as of late is refuse to bake wedding cakes for certain people. At the White House Persian New Year celebration, did Obama speak out against Iran’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction?

New York Times Propagandist Advocates Persecution Against Christians Refusing To Celebrate Homosexuality

Click On The Headline

Are Totalitarian Sodomites Planning The Systematic Liquidation Of Their Critics?

Click On The Headline

Tuesday, April 7

Resurrection Sunday Used As Backdrop For Questionable Presuppositions Regarding Death

A pastor sneered condescendingly in his Easter sermon at his physician for counseling that, if the pastor did not get a particular health issue under control, that the pastor might go to Heaven before his time.

The minister insisted that it is not possible for someone to depart this world before one has completed one's work for God.

Therefore, there really isn't any reason to be concerned about how one will die.

Perhaps the pastor is correct.

You won't depart this world before you are supposed to.

However, it does not follow that the reason you are scheduled for an early departure is not the result of your own stupidity or actions.

When the pastor left church, did he look both ways before turning into traffic?

To employ the kind of logic applied in the homily, wouldn't such a vehicular procedure denote a lack of faith?

If we weren't meant to give much consideration as to the ways in which we leave this world, perhaps God should not have allowed most of them to be so painful.

A pastor confessed to the congregation that he is going to donate his body to science after he dies.

Is the point to see at the Resurrection or the Rapture if any donated organs come flying out of any reprobates that they might have been reassigned to as they are remanded during the process of sanctified glorification to the individual originally holding title?

Furthermore, doesn't this pulpit revelation negate any potential criticisms of cremation this particular Biblical expositor might enunciate in the future?

One can't really berate a congregation or a perplexed individual making a sincere inquiry about how throughout Scriptural and Church History the precedent is for the believer to be buried when one does not intend to be buried oneself.

Throughout my own studies of Christianity, I do not recall any passages where it is detailed that the Apostles, Disciples, or foremost among the Saints willingly surrendered up their remains for the purposes of dissection or experimentation.

By Frederick Meekins

Adventist Sectarians Viewing Sunday Worship As Mark Of The Beast Insist Subpoenaed Sermons No Big Deal

Click On The Headline

It was remarked in a sermon that contemporary Christianity has departed from the slave mentality initially taught by the faith. The believer might technically be Christ’s slave. However, you certainly aren’t the slave of the church or those that administer that religious body.

Friday, April 3

Rural Woodsman Condemned For Prophetic Insight

Spineless milksops are outraged at Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty over the most profound thing he may have ever said.

At a prayer breakfast in Florida, the backwoodsman took direct aim at the ethical bankruptcy of moral relativism.

In the example, Robertson postulated an atheist family where not only are the daughters raped, the wife decapitated, and the father threatened with bodily mutilation but where the Nietzschean assailants revel philosophically in their debauchery in light of the possibility that there is no transcendent standard by which these actions could be categorized as wrong.

Media elites such as those at the Huffington Post are insisting that Robertson's remarks are part of a bizarre and disturbing fantasy.

However, the elaborated scenario is not that markedly different than what is taking place across vast swathes of Islamist controlled territory.

And if all there is is what transpires in the realm of physical matter, on what grounds does civilization stand against these kinds of atrocities?

By the moral vision and worldview of ISIS, it is perfectly acceptable to not only brutally eliminate the infidel but to enjoy carnally defiling the women of the targeted population while engaged in such genocide.

The atheist views human kind as little more than an animal.

In nature, all that matters is continued survival, the propagation of your particular genetic line, and your own pleasure.

It is not unheard of for members of a particular species to inflict all manner of what would be categorized as violence by polite society upon their own kind in pursuit of these particular goals.

Others will insist that, even if Phil Robertson is correct in his observations, he needs to be sensitive that his verbal formulations might unsettle a number of those in the listening or viewing audience, particularly liberal females.

Interesting how these very same marms that don't want Phil Robertson heinously describing heinous acts certainly didn't mind plopping down their money at the bookstore or cinema for “Fifty Shades Of Grey”.

Others certainly don't mind overlooking the violence utilized as a literary device by Stephen King, especially if as part of a narrative for the purposes of making traditional religion look bad.

The cultural and moral relativism the Duck Commander warned about in his prayer breakfast homily is a nefarious and manipulative thing.

Under it's rubric, we are obligated to not only refrain from criticizing but must also enthusiastically applaud balladeers from the ghetto celebrating all manner of crime and debauchery.

Educated effetes in metropolises such as New York and Los Angeles might not be accustomed to the plainspokeness of rural elocutes.

However, by the same standard such elites impose under threat of ruination for those failing to abide by it, if they are not members of Phil Robertson's culture and demographic, who are they to impose their values upon despised White Christian Southerners?

By Frederick Meekins

Scourging Post Gives The Contemplative Much To Think About

Click On The Headline

Southern Baptists Insinuate Failure To Denounce The White Race Could Send You To Hell

Click On The Headline

The Counseling Ministry

Click On The Headline

Thursday, April 2

If a Christian is forced to bake a gay wedding cake against their will, should a Jewish jeweler be forced to engrave a golden cross with the inscription “Jesus is Lord” in violation of their particular convictions?

Regarding institutions of higher education authorizing ISIS student groups, would they also authorize campus chapters of the Ku Klux Klan?

Depraved Subversive Demands 501C3 Churches Embrace Gay Marriage

Click On The Headline

Is Turkish Leader Positioning Himself As Psuedo-Messiah

Click On The Headline

If Christian bakers are forced to prepare gay wedding cakes, should Hindu restaurants be forced to provide cheeseburgers or Islamic butcher shops pork roasts?

Southern Baptists Try To Outdo One Another In Contest To See Who Despises Being White The Most

Click On The Headline

Why Aren’t Sodomite Bakers Forced To Violate Their Convictions Like Christians?

Click On The headline

Libertarian Illusionist Suggests Freedom Of Religion Just Ought To Disappear

Click On The Headline

No Amount Of Positive Thinking Saves Robert Schuller From The Ravages Of Physical Death

Click On The Headline

Wednesday, April 1

In a sermon, men were rhetorically challenged that, as their lives were ending, would they have rather spent their lives watching every episode of their favorite TV program or having given oneself to the faithful service of God’s church. But in this era of DVR’s, DVD’s and even Youtube, is this really an either or decision? Why can’t one do both? But more importantly, given that the sermon addressed the topic of leadership positions within the church, what if one’s church situation does not allow for such opportunities or attach so many extra-Biblical regulations governing the position that filling the office is not worth the trouble?

It was said in a sermon that it is selfish to work for wages or from a perspective of what can you get out of it. Would the homilist prefer we otherwise not work at all? Where do they think the money slipped into the collection plate otherwise comes from? Selfish ambition would be more using immoral means to acquire what one desires or to somehow cheat the individual with whom has entered into a contractual arrangement thought to be mutually beneficial to the involved parties.

So if a gay performer shows up at an audition and the script promotes an explicitly anti-homosexual message, can such a thespian be compelled to participate in the production against their will? If not, one what logical grounds should an Evangelical or Roman Catholic photographer be compelled to document a sodomite nuptial?

CNN propagandist Chris Cuomo, in violation of his professed Roman Catholicism, exasperatedly in a defense of gay marriage asked a Christian rhetorically offered up in the arena to the lions, “You cannot fix gay, do you understand that? This is who these people are.” So why is the only apparently inalterable aspect of the human psyche that which pertains to whom you enjoy rubbing your privates against? So what if the Christian turned this interrogation around and responded “This is who we are. You can't alter our beliefs against our will. Don't you understand that?” Why are Christians obligated to violate their nature? Why must the carnally licentiousness be allowed to revel in who the are but not the religiously devout?

A radio report categorized the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act as not friendly towards homosexuals. What about the number of court rulings handed down inimical to the adherents of particular religious convictions that require this variety of legislative response? This statute could be carefully modified to protect industries, artisans, and craftsmen below a certain size. Large corporations, for the most part, don’t oppose the disputed lifestyle. They have, after all, been at the forefront of indoctrinating the American people into embracing this form of social decay.

Does The Huffington Post Intend To Ream Islam A New One Over The Travails Of Women They Way it Did The Catholic Church?

Click On The Headline

O'Reilly Claims He Knows More Than God

Click On The Headline

Does Lent Have Pagan Origins?

Click On The Headline

Were The Georgia Guidestones Used In A Satanic Ritual?

Click On The Headline