The next worldview examined by Geisler in "Christian Apologetics" is Panentheism. Whereas Deism postulated a God detached from His creation for the sake of transcendence and Pantheism claims that God and the world are coterminous for the sake of immanence, Panentheism attempts to conceptualize a God that is distinct from yet part of the world.
To the Panentheist, God is to the world what mind or soul is to the body (193). Like many of the worldviews and methodologies already discussed, Panentheism can be traced back to the days of ancient Greece.
Perhaps one of the foremost examples of Panentheism would be the Demiurge of Platonic thought. Whereas the Judeo-Christian God created matter out of nothing, Plato’s Demiurge did not create the world out of nothing but rather shaped and crafted it out of independent eternally existent matter.
Since the matter which coexists with this version of God is just as eternal as God, God does not necessarily have the ultimate say. As such, Panentheism is also known as finite godism or process theology.
According to Alfred North Whitehead, God is bipolar. No, that does not mean God is depressed though you might be if this system posited is the best man can hope for. The theology of bipolarity hypothesizes a God with one end in eternity where His potentiality and the things He hopes to accomplish are located and His other end located in the temporal world where His actuality is manifested but not always to the extent He might intend as His creations possess their own autonomy.
Since the world and those in it are able to exhibit a degree of independence thwarting God’s will and ends, the bipolar theory of God is also a form of process theology or finite godism. According to process theology, God changes over time, must rely on us for the accomplishment of His plans in the world, and cannot assure from eternity past that He will ultimately prevail. read more »
Wonder what the food fascists advocating dietary asceticism scarfed down as children. As anyone that has sat through an evangelistic missionary testimonial knows, those griping the loudest about your errant ways are usually the ones that could make a sailor blush before they came to religion.
A Chicago school's policy of controlling what students eat is an example of the threat posed to human liberty by public education. Sad thing is many private educators are just as eager to usurp parental authority. Compounding that, if schools are religious, they'll then compile lengthy theological justifications why you are not a "good Christian" if you don't have a smile plastered across your face regarding the handed-down decree.
If babykillers insist that the government should keep its laws off the body of women wanting abortions, who in the name of Hades are these civil servants to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat for lunch? Students forced to eat food they don't want should toss it in the trash in defiance or preferably hold mass puke rallies and refuse to clean up their own regurgitation.
If educational authorities are granted control over what we eat in the name of protecting us from ourselves, where does this intervention end?
Do education flacks have the authority to tell parents what they may feed their own children in the confines of their own homes?
With each passing decade and generation, it seems the areas central planners claim jurisdiction over continue to expand and the areas over which we exercise jurisdiction and personal preference continue to contract. read more »
With the closing of California highway 405 for repairs, the mayor of Los Angeles is suggesting that residents evacuate the region to avoid being stuck in their homes.
But with that area of the country infamous for its gang violence, do authorities intend to assure homeowners that during their absences steps will be taken to prevent their property from being looted or to prevent squatters from seizing homes outright?
The road is no doubt in need of repair.
Social planners are also no doubt looking at this as an experiment to see if denying infrastructure access could serve as a viable strategy to voluntarily depopulate an area authorities no longer want contaminated by human habitation.
by Frederick Meekins
When someone makes a statement like "The only education we should be interested in is Christian education", it might earn brownie points with certain fanatics.
However, it really needs to be clarified before the wider scope of the Church can endorse it.
For example, does the person making the statement include the entire breadth of human knowledge derived from reflection upon the creation and applications deduced from such cogitation?
If so, the statement can be endorsed.
If the postulator means that the true believer should only concern themselves with those areas carved out as exclusively as "religious", they are sadly mistaken.
For while the decree would seem to highlight the piety of the person making it, it is woefully inadequate to the complexity of the epistemological realities in which we find ourselves.
This is especially brought to light when the person is making such a proclamation over Internet technology in general and Facebook in particular.
For while the scientific advances making such wondrous technological breakthroughs possible are based upon principles established by God, I am not sure these devices would have come into existence by those that only sat around having the Scriptures drilled into their heads in a manner reminiscent of cultic brainwashing.
By Frederick Meekins
Yahoo has promulgated a list of manners that it insists all children should know and abide by.
Many of these such as saying "please" and "thank you" or sending a "thank you note" are important courtesies. Others are simply a reminder just how much certain adults despise children.
Some of these serve no other purpose than to condition the individual into docility so as to be easier to control as adults.
For example, though a child ought to be trained to express their dislike of something in a polite manner, rule number six insists that "the world is not interested in what you dislike. Keep negative opinions to yourself, or between you and your friends, and out of earshot of adults."
Are adults so delicate that their world is going to be shattered should they hear that a child doesn’t like something? If society is that weak, no wonder the Muslims are about to take over.
Furthermore, if this is harped upon as an absolute, at what age does it end?
As an adult, might the person forced to live by this dictum then develop an inhabitation to speak out against anything imposed upon them by a self-appointed authority figure?
Most dictatorial regimes view governing institutions as the adults and the citizen or subject in the role of the child.
If one never speaks up to vocalize what is commonly referred to as a complaint, how will things ever change or improve?
Adults should try to get children to eat a healthy variety of foods, but there are some items you are just never going to like. I will have to pretty much be on death's door before I'll eat beets.
So if a child is never to inform an adult as to a food that the child does not like, should the child's gag reflux be adversely stimulated, will the adult clean up the regurgitation likely to result? Or will the child be duly beaten and told what a wretched example of original sin and unwillingness to submit to authority that they are?
Parents that insist upon slavish adherence to what has been agreed upon as good manners that force their children to consume all kinds of rotgut swill underaged taste buds and digestive tracts aren’t accustomed to should not be shocked fifty years from now when Junior or Sally are eager to toss them in the cheapest nursing home they can find and never look back.
I just might be rude. Some things I simply refuse to eat. Since you're not going to be there in the middle of the night holding my hand as I attempt to soak away a stomach cramp in hot water at 2 am, I don't really care how offended you are I didn't eat the slop you consider a culinary masterpiece that will no doubt taste as bad coming up as it did going down.
I one time remember reading a Gospel tract that the young Christian was obligated to eat whatever any authority figure put on their plate in order to prepare them for their future careers on the mission field. Newsflash: though it is a sacrilege to say so in some circles of Fundamentalist education, not everyone is called to go to the foreign mission field, especially if you can’t stand the site or smell of what the savages stick in their mouths. Besides, most of them want to come to America now anyway where we have decent tasting food.
My great grandfather use to threaten my grandmother that, if she or her siblings didn't eat something, he was going to shove it down their throats himself. So don't tell me the parents of centuries past were by default superior to the parents now.
As a society, we've gone too far into permissiveness, but neither is an overcorrection something to be desired. Treating your children with respect and dignity is the best guarantor that they will emulate these qualities in the years and decades to come.
by Frederick Meekins
Kind of tells you what a person is made of if they hold a pity party in regards to how Bin Ladin was mistreated during his elimination. The person raising these concerns is the very same extreme Reconstructionist that any other time thinks Glenn Beck should be executed as a "false prophet" along with Sabbath violators.
Borrowing from the advocates of infantacide, if you don't want to see Bin Ladin's death photos, DON'T LOOK AT THEM!
Bin Laden was given 40 minute funeral ceremony. That's more of a warning than the victims of 9/11 got.
If Bin Ladin was worthy of an Islamic funeral at the expense of the U.S. Navy, why weren't his minions slain at the compound also worthy of such and left to rot in the Third World sun?
If Bin Laden's death pictures might not be released because it might be inflammatory, should we forbid women from walking about in anything other than a trash bag over their heads since Muslims find that inflammatory as well?
Actually, unless Pakistan wants to be considered a terrorist nation, we did them a favor by removing Osama Bin Ladin from their territory. They were obviously unable to do so themselves.
Terrorism is not averted by catering to the enemy as much as possible. It is averted by creating the impression that, should the enemy try something, you will kill far more of their people than they will of your people.
Even if the video of the Bin Ladin funeral is released, how do we know it is Bin Laden being lowered into the water? It could just as easily be Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhart, or even the Lindberg baby.
The victims on 9/11 weren't armed either.
If Bin Ladin was so innocent in regards to the 9/11 tragedy, why didn't he use his media outreach over all these years to convince the world that he was in no way connected to these events?
Guess those thinking Bin Ladin should have been brought to trial instead would also send his brats Prison Fellowship angel tree gift packages as well.
Most of those all in a moral jumble over the Bin Ladin elimination often don't have a grasp on terrorism's true nature. Most can't expand there imaginations enough to perceive of Bin Ladin as anything different than the cab driver down the street.
If Bin Ladin had to be quickly buried to avoid upheaval, then we don't need to hear added details as to whether he was armed or not. All we need to hear is that the SOB is now in Hell. That's all the details we need if everything else is to be so hushed over.
Jay Carney is no Tony Snow. He certainly doesn't typify his last name which brings to mind at least an enthusiastic and charismatic brand of hucksterism.
As in regards to the way a number of molecular biologists met mysterious ends around the time of the anthrax attacks, wonder how long until those onboard the vessel from which Bin Laden was supposedly disposed of start dropping in bizarre accidents or unexpected diseases.
Trashpile nations and groups don't care a flip about Americans. It is about time Americans stopped giving a flip about the trashpile foreigners. Bin Ladin got far more humane treatment than he ever deserved or ever extended to his victims.
Contrary to Rush Limbaugh, just because elite military special operations commandos don't demand pensions and retirements it in no way follows the rest of us shouldn't. Perhaps he should point out how he himself makes far more that those enlisted in elite special forces. Is this going to become a new version of how parents use to hold it over children's heads when youngsters didn't want to eat something about starving kids in Africa or China.
If DNA wasn't good enough to convict OJ Simpson, why should some lab report convince us that it was Bin Ladin laying (at least for 5 minutes) on some mortuary slab.
So when the government kills Christian fugitives, are they put to rest quickly or stuffed in the morgue freezer indefinitely?
The existence of the First Amendment is inflammatory. Should we abolish it all together to placate the Islamists?
Since Islamic cultures discount the testimony of women, aren't we obligated to honor their culture and ignore Bin Ladin's daughter's account of events.
Obama said we don't need to spike the football. But who was it that had to reconstruct the temple of Zeus at Pergamum for his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention.
If Judge Napolitano is opposed to the Bin Ladin elimination, perhaps he's not fit to be Glenn Beck's replacement after all.
If Bin Laden had been a Christian, would the naval chaplain been allowed to end the prayer in the name of Christ? According to some interpretations of naval regulations, that is not permitted?
Actually, Bin Ladin's people did put pictures of American bodies on the Internet. And unlike how their kind would react, we did not riot. By default, that means our civilization (contrary to the multicultralists) is inherently superior to theirs.
If the media is to harp on the discomfort of waterboarding, how about a detailed forensic analysis of how it feels to be incinerated as a jetliner hits a skyscraper if your lucky or how it feels to have multiple floors to collapse down upon you?
If Bin Ladin was dead, why should the funeral service be translated into Arabic. Not like the manurebag could hear it.
If America does not have the spine to fly our flag over GITMO for fear of offending terrorists, it won't be long until the flag of the terrorists if flying all over the United States.
Makes you wonder if it is now wrong to celebrate the demise of the Axis hierarchy at the end of WWII.
All Obama has ever done is spike footballs. Does anyone else remember his turning back the rise of the oceans speech?
Bin Ladin's minion killed 20 in Iraqi. This will elicit less outrage from the American left than 2 bullets through Bin Ladin's head.
Perhaps Christian Reconstructionists so discombobulated over the Bin Ladin elimination should volunteer to go live in Islamic nations to defend them. See if you last more than two days. I bet it won’t be the U.S. military that ends up doing you in.
The Archbishop of Canterbury criticized the Bin Ladin elimination. Need I remind you that that was the man at the Royal Wedding whose gown was even more girliefied than the one worn by the actual bride?
The Daily Telegraph describes the Archbishop of Canterbury as a "mainstream religious leader". The man is a practicing Druid. No wonder the Muslims are about to take over Britain.
Bin Ladin and his wife hadn't left compound in nearly 5 years. That's about as often as you will get out of the house if Obama's transportation policies go into affect.
If we can't see photos of Bin Ladin's blown off head because it might generate sympathy for him, why in the name of Hades is there talk of releasing his home videos?
The Pentagon intends to release details of life inside of the Bin Ladin compound. Maybe they should couple that with stories of the lives ruined by Bin Ladin.
Before the final analysis, there will probably be some legalistic fanatic that gets all bent out of shape that Bin Ladin's death was announced on a Sunday.
It is estimated that American taxpayers spent nearly $3 trillion on the hunt for Bin Ladin. You'd think we would at least be owed the opportunity to glance at the polaroids.
by Frederick Meekins
A story posted at Yahoo News detailed the steps taken in Washington, DC to prepare for a retaliatory attack on the part of Al Qaeda over the death of Osama Bin Ladin. Among the measures included increased police protection of synagogues and mosques.
What about Christian churches?
Aren’t these structures as worthy of protection?
However, they were not mentioned in the article.
If not, shouldn’t the DC government admit that they are not as concerned about any Christians that die in an attack as they are Jews or Muslims?
Those that properly recall their history will remember that one of the things that turned Bin Ladin against the United States initially was the presence of “Crusaders” in lands deemed sacred and holy by devout Muslims such as Saudi Arabia.
“Crusaders” is a term some Muslims utilize when speaking of Christians in reference to the conflicts during the Middle Ages where Roman Catholic authorities attempted to liberate the Biblical Holy Lands from Islamic control.
As such, if you wanted to strike back at an enemy that you thought was attacking your religion wouldn’t the Washington National Cathedral or the National Shrine of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception --- prominent structures admired and beloved not only by native Washingtonians but by enthusiasts of religious art across the county --- be better targets?
A fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is equal protection under the law.
When a terrorist bomb explodes, the projectile shrapnel of the device can just as easily take out the lives of bystander Christians, Jews, or even Muslims.
by Frederick Meekins
Featured in a twitter post I stumbled across was a promotional by a church promising to give $100 to every single mother that shows up at the congregation for Mother's Day.
If a family lives as some of these fundamentalist churches demand, with dad working and mom at home, they are bringing in no more income than a household headed by a single mother In many instances, single mothers are no more necessarily deprived materially than an intact single income family.
So why doesn't a church handing out $100 to every single mother also give the reward to families that have stayed together as well?
If a church plans to give $100 to every single mother on Mother's Day, do they plan to give $100 to every single father on Father's Day?
Likewise, if a pastor is going to use Father's Day to bash the shortcomings of the contemporary father, shouldn't they use Mother's Day to bash the shortcomings of the contemporary mother?
Why is anyone deserving of a reward in most instances on the basis of their failed relationship status? Jesus can forgive if you ask, but sometimes you must live with the consequences of your actions.
For example, where an associate of mine works there is a woman that has procreated multiple times with nearly as many men. Both my associate and his coworker make around the same amount, with her perhaps a bit more. So should my associate be punished because he has made proper decisions in life and as a result have to subsidize someone that has made less advantageous ones?
Perhaps on Mother's Day in churches where this kind of commemoration is taking place, singles that have not yet reproduced and couples living in the context of intact unbroken marriages should consider withholding their tithes from the collection plate for that particular week.
Scripture says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. As such, anyone feeling a tugging on their heart that they are in need of forgiveness should be welcomed in a church.
Often it is insisted that at the foot of the cross all are equal and that one repentant sinner cannot look down on what another did before coming to Christ. If so, then do not extend a tangible reward to those that have engaged in particular behaviors while withholding it from those that have in good faith lived by the expectations of the group.
by Frederick Meekins
Bin Ladin is supposedly dead. A million plus terrorists to go.
The death of Bin Ladin ends the war on terrorism the same way the capture of Saddam ended war in Iraq.
Now that Bin Ladin is supposedly dead, expect Qaddaffi to attempt to regain his crown as king of all terrorists.
Bin Ladin's compound is surrounded by 18 foot walls. Can't help but admire his taste in architecture and real estate.
Bin Ladin is said to have died amongst his wives and children. Given enough time, Albert Mohler and radical homeschoolers will eventually speak more highly of this mass murderer than Christian singles that have never married.
Obama says Bin Ladin was a mass murderer of Muslims. What about the Christian and Jewish victims of Islamist terrorism?
Obama insisting that Bin Ladin is a murderer of Muslims without referencing victims of other religions will certainly assure America that the President is a Christian and not a Muslim as he insists.
Interesting news of Bin Ladin's death announced on a Communistic/occultuc holiday.
Guess Bin Ladin was given up as a Beltane offering by globalist elites. An article linked to on the Drudge Report points out Hitler also declared dead on a May 1. The dark hidden powers of this earth must demand the sacrifice of their favorites on Beltane.
Mark these words: don't know of what ideology the character will be; but 66 years from now on this very day, the world will be celebrating the death of another figure that will be considered the great blight of that era in history. Hence forward, that proclamantion shall be heralded as the Meekins Prediction.
Bin Ladin's wives taken into custody. US will likely dish out larger social security checks to them than the average American under 45 will ever see
Bin Ladin's body was disposed of in compliance with Islamic customs. It should have been dragged down the street by a wagon pulled by pigs driven by Hooters girls and then buried in women's underwear.
If Osama really wasn't a legitimate Muslim as Obama insists, why was Bin Ladin's body treated in accordance with Islamic custom?
At least Bin Ladin had a body of dispose of. That's more than the families of 9/11 victims were given.
Wonder if the federal government was as respectful of the killed Branch Davidians or the Randy Weaver family.
If Bin Ladin is supposedly buried at sea, what proof do we have that he is really dead?
Fifty years from now, some History channel producer will make a fortune broadcasting documentaries whether or not Bin Ladin actually perished at the hands of American military personnel.
Apparently not one dumb ass in the White House realized chucking Bin Ladin overboard is going to contribute to the greatest conspiracy theory of the 21st century?
Feeding whoever it was captured quickly to the sharks certainly cuts out the possibility for independent verification.
Even in attempting to do something on behalf of the United States, Obama has to insert his nose into the rear ends of the ragheads
I guess Daniel Pearl's and Nick Berg's severed heads were treated with all the respect due the adherents of the Western monotheistic tradtions.
Those turned off by the "celebrations" regarding Bin Ladin's demise should be asked their opinion of the Palestinians celebrations that erupted regarding 9/11.
Bin Ladin is supposedly dead. As any comic book or history reader knows, this is just the opening chapter of the next story.
Wasn't Megatron buried at sea in the first live-action Transformers movie. Look how long that lasted. More than one alleged supervillian popped back from his alleged demise. In the 1980's G.I.Joe comic, readers thought Cobra Commander had been murdered but wasn't. Lex Luthor cloned an entirely new body which he downloaded his consciousness into.
I guess a burial at sea is appropriate for Bin Ladin. He'll need all the water he can get where he's at most likely.
Bin Ladin, whom Obama insists isn't a real Muslim, was given Islamic burial at sea. Often, naval regulations forbid actual Christians from praying in the name of Christ.
If WWII era Italians had all these qualms about respecting a tyrant's body and such, they'd still be living under Mussolini's Fascism.
Shouldn't our border have been secured before removing Bin Ladin unless globalists in office are hoping the death of Bin Ladin will result in mass retaliation?
God might have loved Bin Ladin, but Bin Ladin hated both God and free society to such an extent that he was no longer worthy of the protections of either.
In pointing to the death of Bin Ladin as "an example of what Americans can do when united", social engineers are laying the conceptual framework to have stigmatized as the next Bin Ladin those that disagree with expanded welfare programs and curtailed constitutional liberties. Apart from killing terrorists, there isn't all that much Americans need to be of the same mind of in terms of being imposed by centralized authorities.
One of the lessons to learn from the Bin Ladin incident is that, given the chance, your wife will ultimately be the one to rat you out.
by Frederick Meekins
Another brilliant move on the part of the Obama Administration.
Officials have let it slip that the CIA has operatives on the ground in Libya.
Shouldn't the proper response be when such a question is raised "neither confirm nor deny"?
Better yet, what is so wrong with outright prevarication in regards to such a matter? Some truths are not necessarily owed at the time they are initially raised.
Doesn't the discerning individual already realize that the great powers, by default, have operatives at work in nearly every other great nation around the globe?
In his speech to the American people, the President assured that the Libyan resistance could be trusted since the ranks of the movement consists of lawyers and doctors.
In other words, these people aren't the common street rabble employed as greeters at the Bengazi Walmart or Tripoli Target (the store that is, not the air strike coordinates).
Interesting how Obama applauds these desert nomads for clinging to their guns and their God but thinks it is somehow a threat to the Republic when the armed theists in question happen to be from Pennsylvania.
In regards to the alleged moral superiority of doctors and lawyers over we mere common laborers, weren't a goodly percentage of Nazi managerial functionaries drawn from the professional classes? As Mark Steyn remarked while filling in as a guest host on the Rush Limbaugh program, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara not only rank respectively among modern history’s most famous lawyers and doctors but also among the discipline's most bloodthirsty revolutionaries as well.
Interesting in the case of Libya how in Obama’s mind doctors somehow rank without investigation among the noblest of civil servants that sacrifice willingly for the good of the broader society. But here in America during the healthcare debate, the President depicted the practitioners of medicine as so lecherous as a whole that such wanton avarice had to be contained by layer upon layer of new bureaucracy.
If Qaddafi threatens to go house to house killing Libyans to put down the revolt, what makes him any worse than Prince Phillip who wants to be reincarnated as a killer virus to decimate world population?
Considering they consider themselves enthusiastic members of Qaddaffi's retinue, Americans must ask if given the chance would Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan inflict here the kind of bloodshed their patron is in enacting in Libya.
The propriety of intervention in Libya is now sort of a moot point. Given the Lockerbie Bombing, Qaddaffi must now be taken out if for no other reason than to prevent another similar tragedy.
Guess those Americans living in Libya being interviewed by Geraldo realize now living in the trashpile nations of the earth isn't so glamorous after all.
Qaddafi has been a plague upon mankind for decades. This human pustule has been allowed to fester ignored for so long that, no matter what action is taken, the aftermath will infect the world for a long time to come.
by Frederick Meekins