Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Panentheism’ Category

from Dr.Brian Mattson 

In Darren Aronofsky’s new star-gilt silver screen epic, Noah, Adam and Eve are luminescent and fleshless, right up until the moment they eat the forbidden fruit.

Such a notion isn’t found in the Bible, of course. This, among the multitude of Aronofsky’s other imaginative details like giant Lava Monsters, has caused many a reviewer’s head to be scratched. Conservative-minded evangelicals write off the film because of the “liberties” taken with the text of Genesis, while a more liberal-minded group stands in favor of cutting the director some slack. After all, we shouldn’t expect a professed atheist to have the same ideas of “respecting” sacred texts the way a Bible-believer would.

Both groups have missed the mark entirely. Aronofsky hasn’t “taken liberties” with anything.

The Bible is not his text.

In his defense, I suppose, the film wasn’t advertised as such. Nowhere is it said that this movie is an adaptation of Genesis. It was never advertised as “The Bible’s Noah,” or “The Biblical Story of Noah.” In our day and age we are so living in the leftover atmosphere of Christendom that when somebody says they want to do “Noah,” everybody assumesthey mean a rendition of the Bible story. That isn’t what Aronofsky had in mind at all. I’m sure he was only too happy to let his studio go right on assuming that, since if they knew what he was really up to they never would have allowed him to make the movie.

Let’s go back to our luminescent first parents. I recognized the motif instantly as one common to the ancient religion of Gnosticism. Here’s a 2nd century A.D. description about what a sect called the Ophites believed:

“Adam and Eve formerly had light, luminous, and so to speak spiritual bodies, as they had been fashioned. But when they came here, the bodies became dark, fat, and idle.” –Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, I, 30.9

It occurred to me that a mystical tradition more closely related to Judaism, calledKabbalah (which the singer Madonna made popular a decade ago or so), surely would have held a similar view, since it is essentially a form of Jewish Gnosticism. I dusted off (No, really: I had to dust it) my copy of Adolphe Franck’s 19th century work, The Kabbalah, and quickly confirmed my suspicions:

“Before they were beguiled by the subtleness of the serpent, Adam and Eve were not only exempt from the need of a body, but did not even have a body—that is to say, they were not of the earth.”

Franck quotes from the Zohar, one of Kabbalah’s sacred texts:

“When our forefather Adam inhabited the Garden of Eden, he was clothed, as all are in heaven, with a garment made of the higher light. When he was driven from the Garden of Eden and was compelled to submit to the needs of this world, what happened? God, the Scriptures tell us, made Adam and his wife tunics of skin and clothed them; for before this they had tunics of light, of that higher light used in Eden…”

Obscure stuff, I know. But curiosity overtook me and I dove right down the rabbit hole.

I discovered what Darren Aronofsky’s first feature film was: Pi. Want to know its subject matter? Do you? Are you sure?

Kabbalah.

If you think that’s a coincidence, you may want a loved one to schedule you a brain scan.

Have I got your attention? Good.

The world of Aronofsky’s Noah is a thoroughly Gnostic one: a graded universe of “higher” and “lower.” The “spiritual” is good, and way, way, way “up there” where the ineffable, unspeaking god dwells, and the “material” is bad, and way, way down here where our spirits are encased in material flesh. This is not only true of the fallen sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, but of fallen angels, who are explicitly depicted as being spirits trapped inside a material “body” of cooled molten lava.

Admittedly, they make pretty nifty movie characters, but they’re also notorious in Gnostic speculation. Gnostics call them Archons, lesser divine beings or angels who aid “The Creator” in forming the visible universe. And Kabbalah has a pantheon of angelic beings of its own all up and down the ladder of “divine being.” And fallen angels are never totally fallen in this brand of mysticism. To quote the Zohar again, a centralKabbalah text: “All things of which this world consists, the spirit as well as the body, will return to the principle and the root from which they came.” Funny. That’s exactly what happens to Aronofsky’s Lava Monsters. They redeem themselves, shed their outer material skin, and fly back to the heavens. Incidentally, I noticed that in the film, as the family is traveling through a desolate wasteland, Shem asks his father: “Is this a Zoharmine?” Yep. That’s the name of Kabbalah’s sacred text.

The entire movie is, figuratively, a “Zohar” mine.

If there was any doubt about these “Watchers,” Aronofsky gives several of them names: Semyaza, Magog, and Rameel. They’re all well-known demons in the Jewish mystical tradition, not only in Kabbalah but also in the book of 1 Enoch.

What!? Demons are redeemed? Adolphe Franck explains the cosmology of Kabbalah: “Nothing is absolutely bad; nothing is accursed forever—not even the archangel of evil or the venomous beast, as he is sometimes called. There will come a time when he will recover his name and his angelic nature.”

Okay. That’s weird. But, hey, everybody in the film seems to worship “The Creator,” right? Surely it’s got that in its favor!

Except that when Gnostics speak about “The Creator” they are not talking about God. Oh, here in an affluent world living off the fruits of Christendom the term “Creator” generally denotes the true and living God. But here’s a little “Gnosticism 101” for you: the Creator of the material world is an ignorant, arrogant, jealous, exclusive, violent, low-level, bastard son of a low level deity. He’s responsible for creating the “unspiritual” world of flesh and matter, and he himself is so ignorant of the spiritual world he fancies himself the “only God” and demands absolute obedience. They generally call him “Yahweh.” Or other names, too (Ialdabaoth, for example).

This Creator tries to keep Adam and Eve from the true knowledge of the divine and, when they disobey, flies into a rage and boots them from the garden.

In other words, in case you’re losing the plot here: The serpent was right all along. This “god,” “The Creator,” whom they are worshiping is withholding something from them that the serpent will provide: divinity itself.

The world of Gnostic mysticism is bewildering with a myriad of varieties. But, generally speaking, they hold in common that the serpent is “Sophia,” “Mother,” or “Wisdom.” The serpent represents the true divine, and the claims of “The Creator” are false.

So is the serpent a major character in the film?

Let’s go back to the movie. The action opens when Lamech is about to bless his son, Noah. Lamech, rather strangely for a patriarch of a family that follows God, takes out a sacred relic, the skin of the serpent from the Garden of Eden. He wraps it around his arm, stretches out his hand to touch his son—except, just then, a band of marauders interrupts them and the ceremony isn’t completed. Lamech gets killed, and the “villain” of the film, Tubal-Cain, steals the snakeskin. Noah, in other words, doesn’t get whatever benefit the serpent’s skin was to bestow.

The skin doesn’t light up magically on Tubal-Cain’s arm, so apparently he doesn’t get “enlightened,” either. And that’s why everybody in the film, including protagonist and antagonist, Noah and Tubal-Cain, is worshiping “The Creator.” They are all deluded. Let me clear something up here: lots of reviewers expressed some bewilderment over the fact there aren’t any likable characters and that they all seem to be worshiping the same God. Tubal-Cain and his clan are wicked and evil and, as it turns out, Noah’s pretty bad himself when he abandons Ham’s girlfriend and almost slays two newborn children. Some thought this was some kind of profound commentary on how there’s evil in all of us. Here’s an excerpt from the Zohar, the sacred text of Kabbalah:

“Two beings [Adam and Nachash—the Serpent] had intercourse with Eve [the Second woman], and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial — good wine mixed with bad.”

Sound familiar? Yes. Darren Aronofsky’s Noah, to the “T.”

Anyway, everybody is worshiping the evil deity. Who wants to destroy everybody. (By the way, in Kabbalah many worlds have already been created and destroyed.) Both Tubal-Cain and Noah have identical scenes, looking into the heavens and asking, “Why won’t you speak to me?” “The Creator” has abandoned them all because he intends to kill them all.

Noah had been given a vision of the coming deluge. He’s drowning, but sees animals floating to the surface to the safety of the ark. No indication whatsoever is given that Noah is to be saved; Noah conspicuously makes that part up during an awkward moment explaining things to his family. He is sinking while the animals, “the innocent,” are rising. “The Creator” who gives Noah his vision wants all the humans dead.

Many reviewers thought Noah’s change into a homicidal maniac on the ark, wanting to kill his son’s two newborn daughters, was a weird plot twist. It isn’t weird at all. In the Director’s view, Noah is worshiping a false, homicidal maniac of a god. The more faithful and “godly” Noah becomes, the more homicidal he becomes. He is becoming every bit the “image of god” that the “evil” guy who keeps talking about the “image of god,” Tubal-Cain, is.

But Noah fails “The Creator.” He cannot wipe out all life like his god wants him to do. “When I looked at those two girls, my heart was filled with nothing but love,” he says. Noah now has something “The Creator” doesn’t. Love. And Mercy. But where did he get it? And why now?

In the immediately preceding scene Noah killed Tubal-Cain and recovered the snakeskin relic: “Sophia,” “Wisdom,” the true light of the divine. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

Okay, I’m almost done. The rainbows don’t come at the end because God makes a covenant with Noah. The rainbows appear when Noah sobers up and embraces the serpent. He wraps the skin around his arm, and blesses his family. It is not God that commissions them to now multiply and fill the earth, but Noah, in the first person, “I,” wearing the serpent talisman. (Oh, and by the way, it’s not accidental that the rainbows are all circular. The circle of the “One,” the Ein Sof, in Kabbalah, is the sign of monism.)

Notice this thematic change: Noah was in a drunken stupor the scene before. Now he is sober and “enlightened.” Filmmakers never do that by accident.

He’s transcended and outgrown that homicidal, jealous deity.

Let me issue a couple of caveats to all this: Gnostic speculation is a diverse thing. Some groups appear radically “dualist,” where “The Creator” really is a different “god” altogether. Others are more “monist,” where God exists in a series of descending emanations. Others have it that the lower deity “grows” and “matures” and himself ascends the “ladder” or “chain” of being to higher heights. Noah probably fits a little in each category. It’s hard to tell. My other caveat is this: there is no doubt a ton of Kabbalistimagery, quotations, and themes in this movie that I couldn’t pick up in a single sitting. For example, since Kabbalah takes its flights of fancy generally based on Hebrew letters and numbers, I did notice that the “Watchers” appeared to be deliberately shaped like Hebrew letters. But you could not pay me to go see this movie again so I could further drill into the Zohar mine to see what I could find. (On a purely cinematic viewpoint, I found most of it unbearably boring.)

What I can say on one viewing is this:

Darren Aronofsky has produced a retelling of the Noah story without reference to the Bible at all. This was not, as he claimed, just a storied tradition of run-of-the-mill Jewish “Midrash.” This was a thoroughly pagan retelling of the Noah story direct from Kabbalist and Gnostic sources. To my mind, there is simply no doubt about this.

So let me tell you what the real scandal in all of this is.

It isn’t that he made a film that departed from the biblical story. It isn’t that disappointed and overheated Christian critics had expectations set too high.

The scandal is this: of all the Christian leaders who went to great lengths to endorse this movie (for whatever reasons: “it’s a conversation starter,” “at least Hollywood is doing something on the Bible,” etc.), and all of the Christian leaders who panned it for “not following the Bible”…

Not one of them could identify a blatantly Gnostic subversion of the biblical story when it was right in front of their faces.

I believe Aronofsky did it as an experiment to make fools of us: “You are so ignorant that I can put Noah (granted, it’s Russell Crowe!) up on the big screen and portray him literally as the ‘seed of the Serpent’ and you all will watch my studio’s screening and endorse it.”

He’s having quite the laugh. And shame on everyone who bought it.

And what a Gnostic experiment! In Gnosticism, only the “elite” are “in the know” and have the secret knowledge. Everybody else are dupes and ignorant fools. The “event” of this movie is intended to illustrate the Gnostic premise. We are dupes and fools. Would Christendom awake, please?

In response, I have one simple suggestion:

Henceforth, not a single seminary degree is granted unless the student demonstrates that he has read, digested, and understood Irenaeus of Lyon’s Against Heresies.

Because it’s the 2nd century all over again.

Postscript

Some readers may think I’m being hard on people for not noticing the Gnosticism at the heart of this film. I am not expecting rank-and-file viewers to notice these things. I would expect exactly what we’ve seen: head-scratching confusion. I’ve got a whole different standard for Christian leaders: college and seminary professors, pastors, and Ph.Ds. If a serpent skin wrapped around the arm of a godly Bible character doesn’t set off any alarms… I don’t know what to say.

Read Full Post »

from Crossroads:

“…by Him [Jesus] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. “ Colossians 1:16-17

“…since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made . . . although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts… Professing to be wise, they became fools…” Romans 1:20-2

There was a time in America, when people flocked to Bible-based churches to hear God’s encouraging Word and follow His Way. Back then, God’s timeless Truth brought peace, hope, faith and amazing wonder. But times have changed! Today it’s hard to find a church that doesn’t compromise the Bible and bend it to fit human inclinations and unbiblical fads.

Each year, fewer pastors are prepared to base their teaching on the victorious Word of our Lord — the true Creator of the world. Instead, they simply dismiss the less popular parts of the Bible such as the first chapters of Genesis. After all, a “short earth” makes little sense to those who replace God with human scripts for a universe stretching millions of years into the past.

Many, like the famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins, simply hope one day to discover a higher intelligence that can solve the puzzles that continue to perplex even the most renowned atheistic evolutionists.

Ben Stein Exposes British Evolutionist, Richard Dawkins

Back in 2008, Jewish author Ben Stein interviewed the prominent British atheist and author, Richard Dawkins. Please watch this short excerpt from the much longer DVD titled Expelled: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trUUv_ZDoMo (You can order the full-length video from Amazon and/or watch the short YouTube here)

As you will see, Dawkins simply could not make sense of the evolutionary speculations on which he had built his worldwide fame and fortune. Notice his grandiose claims and flawed explanations. He was totally unable to validate his own assertion that evolution is a proven reality. After all, an atheist — especially a world famous atheist author — cannot accept a creationist’s faith in God’s mighty work without losing credibility!

After watching the full length video back in 2008, Dinesh D’Souza wrote an article exposing Dawkins ignorant and irrational speculations. Here are some excerpts:

“So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, ‘How did life begin?’ One would think that this is a question that could easily be answered. Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. One might expect Dawkins to invoke evolution as the all-purpose explanation. Evolution, however, only explains transitions from one life form to another. Evolution has no explanation for how life got started in the first place. Darwin was very clear about this.

“In order for evolution to take place, there had to be a living cell. The difficulty for atheists is that even this original cell is a work of labyrinthine complexity. Franklin Harold writes in The Way of the Cell that even the simplest cells are more ingeniously complicated than man’s most elaborate inventions….

“[This] absurdity was recognized more than a decade ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix. Yet Crick is a committed atheist. Unwilling to consider the possibility of divine or supernatural creation, Crick suggested that maybe aliens brought life to earth from another planet. And this is precisely the suggestion that Richard Dawkins makes in his response to Ben Stein. Perhaps, he notes, life was delivered to our planet by highly-evolved aliens. Let’s call this the “ET” explanation.

“Stein brilliantly responds that he had no idea Richard Dawkins believes in intelligent design! And indeed Dawkins does seem to be saying that alien intelligence is responsible for life arriving on earth….

“Basically Dawkins is surrendering on the claim that evolution can account for the origins of life. It can’t. The issue now is simply whether a natural intelligence (ET) or a supernatural intelligence (God) created life. Dawkins can’t bear the supernatural explanation and so he opts for ET. But doesn’t it take as much, or more, faith to believe in extraterrestrial biology majors depositing life on earth than it does to believe in a transcendent creator?

“All he can do is hope there is another ‘god’ or ‘intelligence’ somewhere who might have set evolution in motion.”[1]

Did you catch that message? Both Dawkins and Crick agree that life must have begun with some kind of living cell. But they can’t explain how that essential and foundational living cell came about! And so, in desperate search for an answer, they turn to a vague hope of extraterrestrial life still to be discovered. Since both are determined atheists, they refuse to believe in our God — the actual Creator of all life!

“Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists”

On April 18, 2008, Brent Bozell — founder and president of the Media Research Center, the Conservative Communications Center, and the Cybercast News Service — presented his review of Expelled. He began by exposing the standard bias and hostility of evolutionists toward those who reject evolution.

“It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay ‘rights.’ Abortion ‘rights.’…

PC liberalism’s power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension. Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates….

“Ben Stein’s extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.

“Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics — experts all — who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves “expelled” from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).

“That’s disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds. These are experts with national reputations, regular welcomed guests on network television and the like. But the public knows them only by their careful seven-second soundbites. Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion.

“PC liberalism has showered accolades on atheist author Richard Dawkins’ best-selling book “The God Delusion.” But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that he’s been critical of the Old Testament God, Dawkins protests — not that Stein is wrong, but that he’s being too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

“It’s understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts… One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens. Anything but God.

“The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin’s theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler.” . . . . .

read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

It’s called being a follower of Universalism

from the End of the American Dream:

Why do our politicians have to be so weird?  You can tell a lot about a person by the jewelry that they wear and by the things that they carry around in their pockets, and Barack Obama’s “lucky charms” include a Hindu god, a Masonic emblem and a “wedding ring” that has the phrase “there is no god except Allah” inscribed on it.  So what do these things tell us about Barack Obama?  That is a very good question.  Perhaps someone should ask him about these items.  If he is indeed a Prince Hall Freemason (as has been publicly reported), then he should just come out and admit it.  If he feels a connection to Hinduism or Islam, then he should just come out and admit it.  One of the biggest things that annoys so many people about Obama is the secrecy that he has about his past.  There are vast stretches of his history that nobody is even supposed to talk about.  We are all just supposed to accept that he is a “Christian” man that is not into any freaky stuff even when there is a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary.

Personally, I would love to see a reporter ask him about the little Hindu god that Obama carries around in his pocket.  The following is a photo that has been circulating around the Internet of Obama displaying this Hindu idol along with a bunch of other “lucky charms” that he carries around.  It has been reported that Obama carries these lucky charms with him wherever he goes….

The U.S. press pretty much missed this story, but it was talked about extensively in the international media.  For example, the following is from an article in the Economic Times….

A recent photo posted on Time’s White House Photo of the Day collection shows the first ever Black-American nominee of a major US party for the Presidential elections carries with him a bracelet belonging to an American soldier deployed in Iraq, a gambler’s lucky chit, a tiny monkey god and tiny Madonna and child.

That “tiny monkey god,” of course, appears to be a statue of the Hindu monkey god, Hanuman, says the posting but editors and the photographer has not identified it as such.

Obama, whose father was a Kenyan and mother a white woman from Kansas, spent initial days of his life in Indonesia where Hinduism is a popular religion.

So exactly who is Hanuman and how does this god fit into Hinduism?

The following is how Wikipedia describes this Hindu god….

Hanuman (IPA: hʌnʊˈmɑn) is a Hindu deity, who was an ardent devotee of Rama according to the Hindu legends. He is a central character in the Indian epic Ramayana, and also finds mentions in several other texts, including Mahabharata, the various Puranas and some Jain texts. A vanara (ape-like humanoid), Hanuman participated in Rama’s war against the demon king Ravana. Several texts also present him as an incarnation of the Lord Shiva.

Some Hindus in India got so excited about this that they decided to give a two foot tall gold-plated idol of Hanuman to Obama.

And as an article in the Times of India back in 2008 described, this special gift was actually presented to one of Obama’s representatives….

Obama’s representative Carolyn Sauvage-Mar on Tuesday received a gold-plated two-feet-high idol which she will pass it on to the Obama after it is sanctified.

The idol is being presented to Obama as he is reported to be a Lord Hanuman devotee and carries with him a locket of the monkey god along with other good luck charms.

An hour-long prayer meeting to sanctify the idol was earlier organised at Sankat Mochan Dham and by Congress leader Brijmohan Bhama, Balmiki Samaj and the temple’s priests.

“Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him,” said Bhama.

read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

from Herescope:

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ…”
(2 Peter 1:16)

By Gaylene Goodroad

“We are stumbling within this interval between the miracle of our origin and the mystery of our destiny. And we are now beginning to realize that the most critical aspects that impact our destiny lie just outside the ostensible boundaries of the veil surrounding only a ‘virtual’ reality.”

“This field of study is called ‘Quantum Physics’ and its philosophical implications can be shattering to our presuppositions about our ‘reality.’ We now discover that the physical reality that surrounds us is only a virtual simulated reality—made up of indivisible, electrically charged particles: in fact, we exist within a digital electrical simulation!”

“Does the ‘Paranormal’ lie within the margins between the ‘Metacosm’ [a larger reality beyond the macro/microcosms consisting of 10 dimensions or more] and the virtual reality established by the digital simulation?”- – Chuck Missler, Systems Engineer, Author, & Bible Teacher (Introduction to God’s Ghostbusters [italics in original, bold added])

When I began reading successful evangelical author, publisher, and former pastor Tom Horn’s recent book, God’s Ghostbusters, dealing with classic horror film themes (vampires, ghosts, aliens and werewolves), I didn’t expect to encounter these Chuck Missler quotations above dealing with the new science/new math of quantum physicsor quantum mechanics.

Initially, terms such as Chaos Theory, Metacosm, and Hyperdimensional  or Holographic Universe seemed starkly out of place. Familiar with the bizarre teachings and science fictionesque concepts of Tom Horn (the subject of two previous Herescope articles), the more I read, the more I began to see other ominous connections between Horn, his collaborators, and New Age physics. These men are not only taking their readers beyond physical realities, but beyond what is written in Scripture.

THE QUANTUM WORLDVIEW

In my previous Herescope article, “Doomsday Datesetters 2012,” I documented evangelical leader and noted Bible teacher Chuck Missler’s connections to Tom Horn, as well as to the anti-biblical ideas found in New Age physics:

Chuck Missler also promotes other unbiblical ideas more akin to Eastern mysticism than to orthodox Christianity. Consider this material excerpted from a book Missler wrote entitled, Cosmic Codes – Hidden Messages From the Edge of Eternity, Chapter 23:
Quantum Teleporting, Part 2: Our Holographic Universe

There seems to be evidence to suggest that our world and everything in it are only ghostly images, projections from a level of reality so beyond our own that the real reality is literally beyond both space and time. The main architect of this astonishing idea includes one of the world’s most eminent thinkers: University of London physicist David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein’s and one of the world’s most respected quantum physicists…. One of Bohm’s most startling suggestions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really kind of an illusion, like a holographic image…. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the implicate (“enfolded”) order and he refers to our level of existence the explicate (unfolded) order. [emphasis/italics mine]

Compare Missler’s teaching with a passage found in Marilyn Ferguson’s The Aquarian Conspiracy, a book called the “New Age bible” by some:

…[Karl] Pribram mused that the answer might lie in the realm of gestalt psychology, a theory that maintains that what we perceive “out there” is the same as—isomorphic with—brain processes. Suddenly he blurted out, “maybe the world is a hologram!” …Were the members of the audience holograms? …Soon afterward, he spent a week with his son, a physicist, discussing his idea and searching for possible answers in physics. His son mentioned that David Bohm, a protégé of Einstein’s, had been thinking along the same lines…, Pribram read copies of Bohm’s key papers urging a new order in physics. Bohm was describing a holographic universe. What appears to be a stable, tangible, visible, audible world, said Bohm, is an illusion…. What we normally see is the explicate, or unfolded order of things, rather like watching a movie. But there is an underlying order that is father to this second-generation reality. He called the other order implicate, or enfolded. [italics in original, bold mine]

In discussing occult author Lola Davis, Christian researcher Constance Cumbey, author of A Planned Deception, connected the “Holography Theory of the Universe” to the New World Religion. Cumbey states:

In 1980 she [Davis] wrote her first book to date called Toward a World Religion for the New Age. The book was successful in New Age circles. Lucis Trust [formerly Lucifer Publishing, ed.] itself undersaw its distribution. One can count on one hand the number of authors other than Alice and Foster Bailey that Lucis Trust has so honored. Lola Davis believes and evidently Lucis Trust concurs that holographic phenomena will be a very important part of the ‘New World Religion.’ Her book gives that topic nearly half a chapter. [bold, italics mine]

In a technical article written by Noel Huntley, PhD, “A Holographic Universe?,” he connects holographic theory to fractal (quantum) theory: …by taking a small part of our universe that it (the small part) in itself is holographic… this small part reflects the same characteristics as other parts of the universe, ranging up to the whole…. This is what holographic means: the whole is reflected in any part or subpart…. In holistic systems, all parts are in resonance or coherence, which quantum regenerates the whole…. We are familiar with the philosophical statement, ‘As above, so below’ which is based on the axiom of Hermeticism, ‘What is here is everywhere; What is not here is nowhere’. This again is the holographic property…. Leading physicist David Bohm stresses quantum interconnectedness and unbroken wholeness…. Science writer Fritjof Capra speaks of the universe as a hologram, in which each part determines the whole…. The fractal nature of the world is well established. We know that fractals are self-similar patterns on different dimensional scales. This is clearly a property of the holograph… consciousness could be analysed in terms of fractals, tying in with our other approach of relating consciousness to the learning pattern and in turn with its holographic character. Thus consciousness and freewill are inherently holographic…. The universe is holographic fractally (as opposed to infinitely holographic), for example, the levels, planet, solar system, galaxy, are fractal levels similar to the relationship of wrist, elbow, and shoulder…. What is this holographic background? It would be the true nature of unity. Unity, beyond spacetime, must be intrinsically holographic…. [emphasis mine]

The connections here should be obvious. Quantum spirituality is the very deception that Warren B. Smith warns about in A Wonderful Deception: . . . . .

read the full article here.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Oprah Winfrey, new age pagan believer an honored guest at Osteen’s “church”

“Houstonian Diego Quintanilla, who was sitting near the duo, tweeted: “I’m freaking out!! I can’t breathe! It smells like money and amazingness!!”

And that quote pretty much typifies the mindless, shallow & Biblically illiterate  that attend Osteen’s “church”

from The Houston Chronicle:

Oprah Winfrey created a buzz Sunday in Houston with a surprise appearance at the 11 a.m. service at Lakewood Church.

Oprah is in town interviewing Pastor Joel Osteen as a part of her new series Oprah’s Next Chapter premiering in January on OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network.

The show will feature conversations with real people, newsmakers and celebrities.

Seated in the front row of the crowd of roughly 13,000, Oprah and Tyler Perry were announced as guests at the service. Houstonian Diego Quintanilla, who was sitting near the duo, tweeted: “I’m freaking out!! I can’t breathe! It smells like money and amazingness!!”

Oprah joined Osteen and his wife, Victoria, for lunch at their home and spoke with them about faith, marriage, power and ego, according to Lakewood officials.

Read Full Post »

from My Word Like Fire:

Oh! May the God of green hope fill you up with joy, fill you up with peace, so that your believing lives, filled with the life-giving energy of the Holy Spirit, will brim over with hope! (Bold mine) (The Message, Romans 15:13)

Huh? What God of “green” hope? Why does The Message do this?

Before we examine what seems suggestive of earth reverence/earth worship, let us restate some of what has been covered elsewhere about The Message:

A generation has been raised on this disturbing “paraphrase” of the Bible. This is the primary version so many now rely on, and nationally known preachers quote from it with regularity. Yet, as we have seen, The Message flat out omits the sin of homosexuality from several key passages. We see this in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and also in 1 Timothy 1: 8-11 (READ).

Does the acceptance and use of The Message explain why many Christians are lukewarm on the issue of homosexuality? Certainly The Message is not the only factor–we dwell in a pro-homosexual media/culture–but place this “Bible” in a person’s hands and it can have, over time, significant influence. How can we understand God’s Truth when Truth is no longer there to be read?

My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. Do not let them depart from your sight; Keep them in the midst of your heart. (Proverbs 4:20-21)

The beloved author of The Message, Eugene Peterson, has now endorsed two heretical books: The Shack, and Rob Bell’s sly ode to universalism, Love WinsThe Message, bluntly stated, seems written to make Christians less knowledgeable about the Word of God. While that may seem a strong comment, please consider what Eugene Peterson himself said about the Bible:

Why do people spend so much time studying the Bible? (Bold mine) How much do you need to know? We invest all this time in understanding the text which has a separate life of its own and we think we’re being more pious and spiritual when we’re doing it….[Christians] should be studying it less, not more. You need just enough to pay attention to God….I’m just not at all pleased with the emphasis on Bible study as if it’s some kind of special thing that Christians do, and the more the better.” [1] (Bold mine)

I believe The Message is forerunner to a christless, sinless bible that will be used by the false church. There will be a “christ” mentioned, but not our Christ. Not the sinless Savior of humanity. Sin will be addressed, of course, but perhaps more in line with the Alcoholics Anonymous generic theology of “wrongs” and “making amends.”

Homosexuality will be perfectly acceptable, even sacred. And nature, the earth itself, will be worshiped. We have already addressed Eugene Peterson’s removal of homosexuality and other sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, but he also inserts the phrase “use and abuse the earth,” something the Lord did not place there at all.

 Here is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 from The Message:

“Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who do not care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. A number of you know what I’m talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you’ve been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.” (Bold mine)

Did you catch that? Peterson’s version claims those who “use and abuse the earth” will not be saved!

Here is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, from the NASB:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

You will not find this apparent form of earth-reverence in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in any reputable translation of the Bible. It simply is not there.

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

Remember this past Easter? Some were not simply celebrating the Resurrection of Christ. According to Jan Markell:

“A very special week was hijacked by the environmental movement last week. What is known as Earth Day landed on the same day as Good Friday, so our crucified Lord had to share the spotlight that day. And if you think this was only the typical antics of the religious Left, think again. Evangelicals have now jumped into this arena. The cause of caring for God’s creation is our responsibility, although we cannot ‘save the planet’ as many herald. Should conservative Christians really be making the theological leap that it was significant that both observances were placed on the calendar on the same day?” [2] (ARTICLE)

It has started, even in the church. Perhaps especially in the church. Earth/nature worship is going to increase in scope and intensity. Peterson’s insertion of ”green” into Romans 15:13 shows us the way the false church will go. This changes the understanding of the passage, allowing a potential God/nature/earth interpretation that simply is not there.

Oh! May the God of green hope* fill you up with peace, so that your believing lives, filled with the life giving energy of the Holy Spirit, will brim over with hope! (Bold mine) (The Message, Romans 15:13)

Why has Peterson never corrected these things, in all the years The Message has been with us?

Here is NASB, Romans 15:13: Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

You may disagree with my view of the coming false church, and how The Message fits into this. I understand. But I hope you understand the seriousness of what Peterson has done. He has omitted, and he has added. The Message should not be used by the Body of Christ at all.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: