Topic category:  Other/General

The State of Maryland is discombobulated that more died in the past year died of heroin overdose than murder. But in a sense, isn’t that a good thing? At least these idiots died as a result of their own stupidity rather than taking the life of someone else.

The cover story of the 7/25/2014 of the Baltimore Jewish Times is titled “Welcome The Stranger: Many in the Jewish Community along the Mexican border take a humanitarian stand”. And how long will that sentiment stand with a significant percentage of the new arrivals named “Jesus” and “Mary”?

ESPN correspondent Dan Graziano insists “Dungy’s Comments Better Left Unsaid”. The headline is a reference to Dungy’s admission that he would not have drafted Michael Sam because of that player’s propensity to flaunt his sexuality to advance his career. So why aren’t Graziano’s comments regarding Dungy better off left unsaid? Why is it that tolerance and acceptance are to be bestowed only upon those that embrace the prevailing moral decline?

So do the scientists propagating a study about the hygienic dangers of handshakes intend to put one out on the microbial dangers of people not married to each other playing with each others genitals?

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley insisted at a Nebraska Democratic fundraiser that it is a valid role of government to protect children fleeing death. Unless, of course, if the child happens to reside within the womb.

Listed on the cover of the 6/28/14 issue of New Scientist is an article titled “Snap Diagnosis: Scan Your Family Photos To Spot Rare Diseases”. That sounds like a revolutionary method that could spot diseases before it's too late. However, with the prodigious number of photos being posted online, it must be asked who else is using this technology to spot individuals with diseases? Could an insurance company come across a photo of someone with an insufficient gleam in their eye and determine that to be an early indicator of erectile dysfunction or prostate cancer. Perhaps even more importantly, given the increasing popularity of genealogical research and databases, what if either insurance companies or assorted government bureaucratic agency detected a potential genetic abnormality in a photograph of a long dead ancestor? In either of these examples, would such circumstances justify the alteration or even cancellation of a policy?

The same Crone Pelosi labeling Hamas a "humanitarian organization is the same old battle ax that use to hyperventilate Tea Party activists exercising the 1st Amendment would result in street violence.

Pastor Corey Dykstra in a homily posted on SermonAudio.com on the responsibilities of church office insisted that one is not called to preach until that is confirmed by an established ecclesiastical body. So what is to prevent you from engaging in the homiletical act anyway. Furthermore, on what grounds does he then hold to the likes of Calvin being a valid minister he the duly constituted organizational authorities of that day viewed the reformer as has having apostatized from his office?

So long as you aren’t on some kind of offender registry, it ought not to be compulsory to divulge why one leaves one church to attend another. It is not the place of leadership to determine if a reason is sufficiently pious.

Of course some pastors want those in the congregation to think of membership like a marriage you can’t get out of. That’s so they can screw you over anytime they want to.

It’s a bit of an exegetical stretch to invoke the passage about Lot pitching his tents towards Sodom in the attempt to get them afraid about visiting other churches.

So frankly, what one is really saying is that if one feels a call to a certain office, occupation, or work and one does not exhibit a sign of an objective disqualifying factor but an external authority refuses to confirm that call, thus prohibiting one from pursuing what it is one has a desire to do, is that God gets a kick out of yanking people’s chains.

One might have to be a member of THE CHURCH to enjoy salvation. However, that doesn’t mean one must belong to a particular organized church. Contrary to many, there is nothing in Scripture forbidding the Christian from going around to different churches. If preachers often claim that the Spirit is leading them elsewhere to different ministries every few years, why do many of these same preachers sermonize as if the average believer’s backside must be superglued to the pew.

By saying that when voting someone into ecclesiastical office one is obligated to set aside one’s opinions about an individual, aren’t you close to creating an atmosphere where one is saying you are obligated to potentially vote “yes” in regards to an individual that you have an inclination (perhaps even a longing in the spirit to put the matter in parlance the overtly pious will find it difficult to dismiss) is going to possible treat you life digestive effluent and possibly even ruin the lives of your family for years to come?

Numerous sermons are preached on how the congregation is to obey the rulers over them in such a way as to make the task a joy. How come very few admonitions about the rulers leading in such a way as to make obeying them in THOSE LIMITED AREAS OVER WHICH THEY HOLD AUTHORITY a joy?

It was claimed in a sermon that there was a day when ministers were held in higher esteem. There might have also been a day when they were less likely to keep their hands out of the collection plate and off the underaged in the congregation as well. But then again, folks might have just been more brainwashed not to say anything about it as well.

If the congregation is to be as held as responsible for its actions within the church as the pastor and to work to the same level, how come the pastor is usually the only one getting a pay check?

Whoopi Goldberg is correct. Women that hit men first should expect to be hit back.

By Frederick Meekins

Frederick Meekins
Issachar Bible Church & Apologetics Research Institute

Biography - Frederick Meekins

Frederick Meekins is an independent theologian and social critic. Frederick holds a BS in Political Science/History, a MA in Apologetics/Christian Philosophy from Trinity Theological Seminary, and a PhD. in Christian Apologetics from Newburgh Theological Seminary.