Thursday, May 8
Interesting. Licentious progressives demand such uniformity of mindset that those privileged to be spotlighted in the media targeting that particular demographic must not be allowed to formulate streams of cognition contradicting this ethical hegemony even when these reflections are not highlighted in the information such personalities are contracted to convey. For example, HGTV removed from its lineup a new program titled “Flip It Forward” because the Christianity espoused by the hosts of the program opposes gay marriage and abortion. Never mind the fact that it would be Christian beliefs that would motivate an individual to assist the destitute in acquiring shelter. That should teach the hosts a lesson. Perhaps they should just use their skills at carpentry and real estate to accumulate wealth for themselves with those unable to do so allowed to fritter into destitution and ruination in compliance with the Darwinian hypothesis. Yet when there is the possibility that a small segment of the media is at least open to the possibility of allowing for the expression of a broadly traditionalist or theistic perspective in a public format, these very same licentious progressives rampage how this one outlet is suppressing dissent. This is particularly evident in liberal opposition to Fox News. Derangement against that news organizations is so widespread and vehement that some time ago, liberals about pulled their hair out how the network was featured in episodes of 24 (a drama that tends to skewer conservative in terms of its viewership) even though Fox (the network upon which 24 aired) and Fox News are owned by the same company.
In justifying why a pastor must never be seen in a Hawaiin shirt, a fundamentalist Baptist insisted that the world needs to see that we are like God and not the world. So how is such a perspective markedly different than those that insist ministers should wear clerical collars and vestments rather than business suits? Isn’t it that the business suit is the clerical collar and vestment of most hyperlegaistic fundamentalists?
A pastor condemned a fellow minister for making an idol technology because he did not return a phone call after several attempts but replied to a text within 30 seconds of receiving one. What we have here is not so much a sin but rather a difference in personal technological preference. So would condemnation on part of an Amishman or a Luddite of the minister conducting his communications through telephone rather than through written correspondence or perhaps face to face also be valid or would that simply be viewed as fanatic overkill? And what of those that condemned the proliferation of the printing press during the days of the Reformation?
Interesting. In terms of coercing compliance irrespective of whether or not that which being called for is a clearly delineated issue, pastors often emphasize the Hebrews 13:17 calling for obedience of those that rule over you so that their task might be joyful. What about the verse where those in authority (especially parents) are urged not to provoke those under them to wrath?
A number of questionable assumptions were expounded in an elocution on national repentance based upon the Book of Joel posted on SermonAudio.com. For example, for true repentance to come about the pastor insisted that first one was required to first conduct a “fast of the spirit”. Apparently, it is not enough to abstain from that which is merely sin. One must also abstain from those desires that find their origin in the flesh but are otherwise legitimate. So does that mean if your backside itches, you can’t scratch it? Giving up that which one is not required to does not earn brownie points with God. If anything, it merely takes one dangerously closer to works-based righteousness “at best” and at worst might push one over into a proto-gnosticism that denigrates materiality and embodiment. Secondly, this pastor went out of his way to spoof those that prefer to deal with there in the pew any conviction they might be under from the Holy Spirit rather than going forward to make a, shall we say, spectacle of themselves in the front of the church. Instead, in times of judgment, repentance must be made public. So apparently, not only can’t you scratch your own backside, you’ve got to cop before an audience to each time you’ve stolen a glance of someone else's backside Frankly, on what grounds do these variety of Baptists then complain about Roman Catholic ritualism such as confession, unnecessary penance, and bodily mortification?
Transhumanist Conference Ponders The Theological Implications Of The Pending SIngularity
Click On The Headline
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)