Headline Potpourri #96

According to thespian Emma Thompson, way back in 1998, Donald Trump called her offering accommodations and suggested they could have dinner sometime. If we are to abide by the axiom that what happens between consenting adults is their own business and that he did not unduly threaten her after she declined, does this even rise to the level of a story? After all, Trump was apparently extending his potential conquests courtesies Bill Clinton wasn't at nearly the same time. Just ask Juanita Broderick.

A Virginia man dressed as the Joker and carrying a sword was arrested in part for wearing a mask in public. You think the sword wielding would have been the more obvious charge. Technically, this acolyte of the Crown Prince of Crime was wearing makeup and not a mask. Shouldn't this same law also apply to infidel sows adorned in burqas?

In a lecture titled “Can The Religious Right Be Saved?”, Russell Moore condemned the pastors of his youth that articulated a variety of outlandish statements found nowhere in the Bible. What, sort of like the ones Moore spews forth now?

Outrage has erupted that Trump announced his regime's intentions to enforce immigration law as originally promulgated. But aren't we obligated to obey the law because it is the law? After all, that is what businesses are told faced with choice between providing services for gay weddings or financial ruination.

An HBO producer has plead guilty as an accessory after the fact in the drug death of a 38 year old doctor and mother of three. For the dumping of the body in a hallway, the U.S. attorney said in an issued statement, “Marc Henry Johnson's immediate response to seeing a dying overdose victim should have been to summon help.” That is probably the right response. However, isn't it a bit much to extend the sympathies of victim status? For not only did this woman prefer dope and booze over her children, but as a doctor shouldn't she have known of the impact that results in the overindulgence of these vices? Seems she is responsible in part for her own unfortunate demise.

So if we are supposed to collectively get jacked out of shape over comments made by Bill O'Reilly about a Congresswoman's suspected wig, will society call as vigorously for the condemnation of those mocking balding and graying men? Wonder if those vociferous in their condemnation of Bill O'Reilly's comments ill be as outspoken in their condemnation of the knockout game or when deadbeats pillage after unpopular jury verdicts in order to loot wigs and assorted haircare products.

Jeb Bush has admonished President Trump to stop saying things that are not true. Wonder if the failed candidate was as bold in the criticism of his father's and his brother's respective regimes.

In a Ted Talk, Canadian broadcaster Coleen Christie warned that citizens must be cautious about getting their information from social media because that would mean your neighbor with a thing for cats becomes your news director. By that, she no doubt meant the important task of informing the public cannot be left to amateurs. William F. Buckley once remarked that he'd rather a chance being governed by the names in the opening pages of the phone book rather than the faculty of Harvard University. Along those lines, often these professionals are only groomed for their roles largely because they look good in a short skirt and a blouse with a plunging neckline or because of what secret society they have likely pledged unwavering allegiance to under threat of disembowelment.

In criticism of the so-called “Benedict Option” where it is suggested Christians withdrawal into a quasi-monastic seclusion in order to avoid cultural decay and doctrinal contamination, in SermonAudio remarks Pastor Sean Harris also articulated harsh words about those that retired to the beach or even Christian retirement communities. The pastor counseled that time in these sorts of places needs to be limited because they supposedly keep one away from the body of Christ. What he really must mean is that such alteration to one's life circumstances would end up directing funds away from his particular congregation. For are there not churches in beach communities if one is there that often and not congregations affiliated with or minister to Christians in active adult communities?

Yahoo News is celebrating a child with Down Syndrome as the changing face of beauty. Mind you, these are probably the same pro-abortion ghouls that in any other instance would have pressured parents to eliminate a defective child. Let's see if the public still flocks to support the child when the child is not so cute anymore and he's about a 200 pound middle aged individual still needing to be looked after in a manner similar to a toddler.

There is no winning with some shrill banshee feminists. President Trump is condemned for wallowing in the sins of the flesh over the course of his public life. However, a Washington Post harpy now condemns Vice President Mike Pence for living by a standard where he never dines alone with a woman other than his wife and does not attend functions where alcohol is present without his wife there with him.

Franklin Graham film insists that doctors surviving ebola was a miracle. On Fox News, Graham said this was a story of God saving the lives of these missionaries. If one is going to say that, isn't it conversely the story of God not saving the lives of the thousands He allowed to succumb to this epidemic? Don't like that observation? Why not just say those not weakened by living in squalor and filth might have a bit more of a chance of battling the disease? Perhaps Christian filmmakers ought to give a bit more consideration the implications of what they are saying.

Activist busybodies are now calling for the end of public applause because the gesture is offensive to the deaf. Instead,the emotion once conveyed with this gesture is to be expressed through jazz hands. But doesn't that exclude the blind unable to notice waving hands? But then again, most blind people --- unlike a significant number of deaf --- haven't organized themselves into borderline terrorist groups threatening violence against those pursuing cures to this affliction.

The State of Mississippi considered a proposal where parents would be graded regarding the extent of their involvement in the education of their children. Like it or not, report cards are part of a permanent academic record used to either reward or punish students in terms of future opportunities or the lack thereof. As such, what is to prevent such an assessment from being used against parents in terms of the child protection racket?

Wonder if those so jacked out of shape at a Canadian license plate roughly reading “Assimilate” in reference to the Borg battle cry from Star Trek but not because of any opposition to cybernetic varieties of Transhumanism but out of a desire of minorities to retain the lifestyles of their native lands still demand handouts from the Western societies that they despise so vociferously but can't seemed to renounce the creature comforts of.

The latest buzz surrounding Cinco de Mayo is lamentation regarding cultural misappropriation. In other words, even when they abandon the celebratory commemorations of their own culture in favor of those of a preferred demographic, White people are apparently still obligated to sit around glum-faced in reflective self-loathing.

New York Magazine insists that the Second Amendment makes America vulnerable to ISIS attack. Does the magazine plan to publish a similar article regarding potential terrorism resulting from lax immigration enforcement and swarms of refugees pouring over the border?

On Facebook, I stumbled across a church with a recycling ministry where used items such as furniture and other related things are being collected for international students matriculating at a nearby university. Theoretically, why would the offspring of Alibaba founder Jack Ma or even Prince Harry himself be more worthy of such eleemosynary than the progeny of a Appalachian coal miner or a laid off factory worker? In the vast majority of cases, foreigners coming to study at American universities aren't Kalahari bushmen. Rather they are going to have a significant degree of wealth to begin with if they are coming here just to study. As such, isn't it just as wrong to limit one's charity to those of this particular origin as it would be to limit one's charity to White's only? Furthermore, if these items are no longer good enough for you, isn't it racist to assume that these cast offs are good enough for foreigners? Isn't it about time Christians end this underlying contempt of their own countrymen?

Fox News talking heads applauding Trump's Libery University commencement oration insisting critics are never successful. But doesn't the network's ratings success contradict that message?

In his Liberty University commencement oration, President Trump insisted critics never really accomplish anything. But didn't Trump ride a continual drumbeat of incessant criticism to electoral victory? There is nothing wrong with that. He just shouldn't now attempt to market himself as perennial positivity.

These pharmaceutical commercials make it sound if you aren't in the doctor's office constantly that you aren't blessed but rather missing out on life. Most of the folks on these medicines aren't out riding horseback or climbing mountains. Their trips to the doctor's office are about the only place they go at all, that a struggle, and takes it out of them to the point that they never recover.

Interviewee on Fox News insists that a good parent ought to find and nurture a child's talent. As Donald Trump's unofficial propaganda office, would they endorse that message if the child's greatest skill was criticism?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany is destined to become an Islamic state and that is something that the native population is just going to have to come to terms with as a demographic and political reality. At least there is the consolation that they can hope she will be forced to put a bag over her head as well in compliance with Sharia law.

Bill O'Reilly will appear weekly on Glenn Beck's radio program. But according to Glenn Beck, Trump's carnal proclivities will lead to the acceleration of America's cultural decline but it is apparently. Yet it is apparently acceptable for Beck to finance O'Reilly because it's doubtful someone as full of themselves as O'Reilly is going to pontificate for free.

Maybe if Microsoft just sent out security updates and not attempt to download entire new copies of Window's onto customer's computers, people would be more diligent in updating their devices.

Outrage has erupted over a group of “White nationalists” that organized a protest in response to the removal of a number of Confederate memorials. Do these same mainstream media outlets emphasize the radical proclivities and ideological backgrounds of the activists behind Black Lives Matter demonstrations or the shrill banshee rallies where the psychotics on weekend release from the looney bin parade around the nation's capital in vulgar costumes? Likewise, in reference to President Trump's commencement oration, WTOP referred to Liberty University with the modifer “ultra conservative”. Are the network's listeners similarly systematically informed of the political correctness endemic to the Ivy League each time one of those expensive indoctrination centers is referenced?

It was remarked from a pulpit that someone cannot be prayed for unless the need is communicated. Isn't this essentially saying that, if God has to be told the juicy details of a specific need by the hired help, He is not quite as omniscient as assorted sermons make Him out to be.

So does the sermon claiming that it is acceptable to outwardly display our depression and to tell these feelings to God now repudiate past sermons that if you are depressed it was probably because you were in a state of sin to begin with?

In a podcast, Russell Moore claimed that the current church does not mobilize WOMMMENNN to the same extent as in the past. This actually translates as ecclesiastical functionaries jacked out of shape that the pool of free labor has about dried up.

In a message on family, a pastor suggested if young people his puberty at between 10 to 14 years of age, they should be allowed to get married. And who is supposed to provide for this couple? The pastor lamented that, in some countries, 15 year olds fight wars and, in America, 30 year olds play video games. But so long as the 30 year old has some sort of gainful employment, doesn't that comparison actually summarize the superiority of American system and way of life? Because in most instances these child soldiers are actually taken from their families against their will.

A congressional aide was condemned in the media for criticizing the deportment and behavior of the Obama children. It is claimed the condemnation was justified on the grounds that to mention the families of politicians violates an “unwritten rule”. There is nothing really wrong in violating an unwritten rule. Such a standard has not been implemented through the established procedural channels nor necessarily agreed to be binding upon those not willing to abide by it. If a subjugated population is forbidden from criticizing the progeny of their rulers and thus by proxy the the rulers themselves, shouldn't the spouses of those holding elected office also refrain from criticizing how Americans raise their own children as well as refrain from imposing their own dietary peculiarities upon public institutions over which they exercise no legitimate authority?

An episode of Generation's Radio was titled “Filmmaker Chastises Christians For Watching Films: Film Has Usurped Church”. In the discussion, a Christian filmmaker provided a summary of his upcoming projects. In the synopsis, he namedropped that one film featured actor Harry Anderson. The producer reminded that, before his decline to has-been status, Anderson starred as the judge on the sitcom “Night Court”. So if the sanctified believer is to refrain from these sorts of worldly entertainments, how is anyone in the listening audience even supposed to know what “Night Court” is? Admittedly, I saw a few episodes of “Night Court” in my youth. It must be pointed out that a significant percentage of the comedy on the series derived its humor from double entendres. I will admit that at times I enjoy that sort of borderline risque humor more than I really ought. But neither do I host a podcast where it was once insinuated that your daughter might turn out to be a lesbian if she is fascinated with The Little House On The Prairie books.

Trump's Ramadan remarks have been condemned for largely being aimed at terrorism. If terrorism is what comes to the mind of the average person when they hear terms associated with Islam, isn't that largely the fault of the violent Muslims? Buddhism seldom suffers from similar bad press. How is Trump's hijacking Ramadan as a pretext to discuss terrorism any worse than the litany of leftwing politicians co-opting Christmas in order to guilt-trip voters into supporting calls for increased social welfare budgets?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

The Cultural Impact Of Worldview & Apologetics, Part 3

It could be argued that the primary perspective allowing so many of the other outlooks to take hold that would have seemed downright silly, bizarre, and even inimical to human liberty to previous generations of mainstream Americans is none other than Postmodernism. Modernism held that man --- through observational science and objective reasoning --- could on his own without reliance on God's revelation derive truths roughly equivalent to those once deduced from religion and even improve upon those areas in which credentialed experts had concluded ecclesiastical authorities had fallen short. Postmodernism holds, in the words of J.P. Moreland, that "...there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason, and so forth. All of these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices, and, as such, are relative not to individuals but to social groups that share a narrative (208)."

The average person may not be aware of the obtuse and technical debates that go on in academia regarding the nature of history or whether or not there is a definitive interpretation to a classic work of literature or even if there are works of literature worthy of distinction as such. However, on some level just about everyone (with the exception of those in a persistent vegetative state whose lives are actually endangered as a result of the amoralism Postmodernism advocates) is familiar with the perspective of ethical relativism.

Francis Beckwith defines moral relativism as, "the view that when it comes to questions of morality, there is no absolute objective right and wrong; moral rules are merely personal preferences and/or the result of one's cultural, sexual or ethnic orientation (211)." This sounds quite enlightened philosophically, but as Beckwith points out, in such a system the belief that unjustified killing is wrong is reduced to the level of individual predilection such as one might have for one variety of ice cream over another.

The relativism upon which Postmodernism rests is undermined by its own assumptions and is ultimately held in place only by the sheer power of those that profess it. The unfortunate thing is it is through this mindset that such elites tend to propagate themselves and to marginalize those failing to embrace a form of diversity where everyone is compelled to espouse the same set of principles.

Inherent to Postmodern relativism is the assumption that no objective standard exists. Beckwith observes, “If the mere fact of disagreement were sufficient to conclude that objective norms do not exist, then we would have to believe that there is no objectively correct position on such issues as slavery, genocide, and child molestation; for the slave owner, genocidal maniac, and pedophile have an opinion that differs from the one held by those of us who condemn their actions (215)."

Yet especially in regards to the issue of child molestation, unless one has been severely traumatized oneself or deliberately decided to wallow in humanity's basest perversities, one recoils in horror at the prospect of there being no higher justification protecting the innocent from such horrors. Beckwith assures, however, the fact that objections can be raised regarding such practices itself lends credence to moral standards existing above the fray of human affairs. For to insist that there are no absolutes is itself to invoke an absolute.

The human tendency to formulate moral codes, even when those cultures and individuals deriving these fall short of the aspired ideal, is a powerful tool in the hands of the apologist to point the seeker towards the existence of God. If nothing exists beyond the physical realm, man is the highest authority with the state being the highest of his institutions. In such an environment, “what is” becomes “what ought” with the nation possessing either the largest army or the nation most willing to use force in extending its policy objectives both within and beyond its borders determining this for the greatest percentage of the world’s population.

Thus for standards to exist against horrors such as slavery and genocide beyond human preference and circumstance, they must be rooted in a source existing above, beyond, and yet accessible to human beings and their institutions for the purposes of reflection and implementation. Paul Copan writes, “The existence of a good personal God, who created humans in his image, offers a simpler and less-contrived connection, a more plausible context to affirm human value and rights as well as moral obligations (87)." Since human beings posses conscious personhood, the source of the standards we are to live by must also possess this quality.

Sexual debauchery and drunken carousing might provide a shallow satisfaction for a short while; however, after awhile the typical soul longs for something it perceives as having a more solid foundation. Indoctrinated now since nearly the first day of school as to the shortcomings of Western civilization, many young skulls full of mush as Rush Limbaugh once categorized naive students are turning to what are described as Eastern religions or systems of belief in their pursuit of purpose and meaning.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Leftist Theologue's Animus Towards America Extends To Nation's Very Name

Sometimes a notion or a concept can seem insightful upon its initial articulation, but after additional consideration it seems rather vapid or out of touch with reality. For example, published in the December 2016 edition of “Christianity Today” is a column titled “Christianity Without An Adjective”.

On the surface, such a goal seems laudable as it is a reminder not to sublimate Christ to any particular ideology or social philosophy. However, such an admonition fails to take into consideration why many today feel the need to articulate a modifier when describing their particular brand of Christianity and how this admonition to avoid doing so just as easily plays into the hands of the adversary.

“Christianity Today” began in the second half of the twentieth century in order to defend sound Biblical Theology in an intellectually respectable and rigorous manner before a public whose institutions of thought had already turned markedly hostile towards religiously orthodox ideas and perspectives.

In particular, “Christianity Today” was intended to stand as an alternative to more leftist publications such as “Christian Century”, “Commonweal”, and “Sojourners Magazine”. These publications often tended to promote a more liberal outlook on a variety of social, cultural, and theological issues to the point where the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith were denied but the Christian terminology retained as a way to understand reality even if these definitions were reconceptualized in compliance with the radical fads of any given moment of the lengthy print runs of these respective publications. Coming briefly to mind was an article published a few years ago suggesting in violation of Hebrews 9:22 that the shedding of blood really wasn't all the necessary for the remission of sins after all.

Those holding to a more traditionalist understanding of the faith once delivered unto the saints were not the ones that attempted to alter the rules in the middle of the game or the very game itself. As such, why are we obligated to be the ones verbalizing a flagellating remorse in order to differentiate ourselves from those that deny essential doctrines such as the Incarnation of Christ, His Resurrection, and heterosexual marriage as the only valid form of carnal relations between human beings?

From the article, the discerning reader also comes away with the impression that this crusade against descriptive modifiers is also a front through which to ensnare Evangelical Christianity in the leftist fads of White privilege and racial guilt.

K.A. Ellis writes, “A Christianity qualified by any adjective now feels restrictive for good reason.” That means that, .by tying Christianity to any one particular understanding, one ends up feeling guilty when making common cause with universalists, moral subversives, and any number of garden variety unbelievers.

The author continues, “...As I mentioned in a previous column, that is why some are calling themselves 'Christian Americans' rather than 'American Christians'.” In other words, the truly pious or devout (those truly “sold out to Jesus” as they used to say hoping to manipulate prospects into “surrendering” to full time missionary work) have severed all meaningful ties with an identity other than their Christian one.

Yet while this is praised with one hand, the author turns around and ignores this ideal with another. What the writer probably intended to convey was that this condemnation of Christians identifying themselves in part by their particular nationality is only to be applied to those that invoke the term to signify a sort of benevolent sternness that, while desiring to advocate as much goodwill as possible to the external world, when the time comes is not going to be passively kicked around by the advocates of malevolence and tyranny.

For example, K.A. Ellis referred to Stanley Hauerwas as an “American theologian” and not as a “theologian from America”. It should be pointed out that Hauerwas is noted for markedly leftwing views.

Those that like to pat themselves on the back by playing word games in the attempt to trip people up but in the process expose just how devoid of actual wisdom and commonsense those whose primary purpose in life is to put on display just how broadminded they think themselves to be will no doubt make a fuss that in this particular instance the word “American” was paired with the word “theologian”. As such, this new standard being advocated does not apply.

However, this was not the only instance it was violated in this particular article. Ellis writes, “...we are more in concert with the orthodoxy of the two-thirds world Christians, especially those in the underground church.”

Shouldn't Ellis have formulated the phraseology as “Christians in the two-thirds world”? So if we are to so despise America that we get jacked out of shape upon hearing the linguistic combination “American Christians” why ought those living elsewhere get an easy pass?

Worthy of note is the admonition to be “in concert with the orthodoxy of two-thirds-world Christians, especially those in the underground church.” Just what exactly does that consist of?

Does Ellis mean the strong stance against homosexuality and similar carnal lifestyles that have prompted a number of ecclesiastical functionaries to take a bold position against the wanton licentiousness allowed to fester in certain branches of the Anglican Communion by seeking their apostolic oversight under a select number of African bishops rather than traditional Western prelates? Or instead, is this sentiment articulated more in solidarity with the tendency of some in these less developed lands to prefer a less than free market and more communal distribution of resources where profit does not so much accrue to those that earned it but rather to those that shout their grievances the loudest or are perhaps the most proficient at acts of violence?

It is imperative that Christianity be articulated in such a way as to grab the attention of those that are spiritually adrift. However, their eventually comes a point where those attempting to reach the lost by adopting much of the way that the lost view the world around them become virtually indistinguishable from the lost and end up losing much of their way as well.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network