Saturday, August 05, 2017

HOLONOMICS -- AN IMPORTANT AND GROWING SYNTHESIS OF NEW AGE THINKING AND PLANNING

Two weeks ago,  our local Oakland Press had an intriguing article about something called the "Pontiac Holonomy Incubator."  Its leaders would be holding the Open House at 3 pm, a rally in a small park across the street in downtown Pontiac, Michigan would take place at 4 pm.  I felt it urgent that I check it out, as it clearly resonated with many "think globally, act locally" schematas I had viewed in the past in the course of my research on the New Age Movement.

I quickly learned from internet research that this was one of many projects being inspired by a new book circulating in both business and academic circles entitled HOLONOMICS:  BUSINESS WHERE PEOPLE AND PLANET MATTER.  Authors Simon and Maria Morae Robinson certainly do not look like idealogues or schemers.   Instead, they come across as a fresh faced relatively nice young couple.  They are are presently important players in stirring the pot of a concept called “holism.”  It also goes by the name of “holonomy” and the term they say they “coined” of “holonomics.”  For sure, they are true and sincere believers in their cause.  Their cause beautifully and unfortunately illustrates what I call “the hidden dangers of the New Age rainbow.”

Simon and Maria Robinson are now Brazilian based educators.  They are teachers at a college level school in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  It is my impression that they are perhaps cradle New Age believers.   They are passionately trying to convert the world, particularly at the business level, to what they call “holonomics.”   It appears to be quite the New Age stew of "paradigm shift", "Systems Thinking" "earth reverence," "holistic thinking," "all is interconnected," GAIA theories; Buddhist management, Sai Baba, phenomenology, and self-organizing evolution theories mixed in with let's all love each other so we can grow together type exhortations.  



They also mix a great deal of current science research they believe supports their theories.  Their work is receiving glowing reviews from varied sources.

New Agers I discovered as relatively young radicals (e.g. Fritjof Capra) are now aging academics who represent settled wisdom and knowledge to these young authors.  I personally just finished reading the Kindle edition of their book.  I’ve ordered the paperback copy as I want a copy I can freely markup and annotate.    The hard copy book is taking its sweet time to reach me -- that is part of the delay on this article.  I just finished reading the Kindle version as I write tonight.  It is a sizable book with many twists and turns -- while well written, it is not easy reading.

Marilyn Ferguson (1938-2008) wrote in her 1980 New Age landmark book, THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY (page 280) that “You can only have a new society . . .  if you change the education of the younger generation.”[i]   While complaining that young people were “limited” because entrenched educators controlled the system.  To gain degrees and academic credentials necessary for advancement, one had to go along with the established educational bureaucracy.

On the same page, she also happily wrote about the large number of conversions in the academic world to New Age thinking.

It is now appearing that those carrying the same new thinking advocated by Marilyn Ferguson and her many associates, e.g. Willis Harman, Maurice Strong, Hazel Henderson, Fritjof Capra, and so many others have become the new established bureaucracy in education.     More often these days, students must regurgitate as 'gospel,' the theories of this indoctrinated group of new academics.

These developments also remind me of another book popular in New Age circles, PARADIGM WARS (1996) by Professor Mark B. Woodhouse.

The Robinsons are interviewed as a couple by California New Age activist Gunther Sonnefeld.  The online video is available for watching by CLICKING HERE .  Several other interviews are available there as well.

Early on in the video, the Robinsons say they “coined” the word holonomics, fashioning it from words dealing with both holonomy and economics.  

However, that word has long been used by others and given very similar meanings by others in New Age and neo-pagan circles.

In my personal library, which I am far from done surveying, I have found that term used in the same sense as that expressed by the Robinsons in several books among them being

I'm just starting on this topic.  To be continued.

Stay tuned,
CONSTANCE





[i] Ferguson, Marilyn.  THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY, page 280.

Comments:
CONTEST:

Who knows what the acronym N-O-M-A (NOMA) stands for in these circles? Google it. It might help if you use the words "Stephen Jay Gould" in your search.

Constance
 
Physicists have long used the technical terms "holonomic constraint" and "non-holonomic constraint" when analyzing the Newtonian dynamics of certain systems. Google them for more info!

Physicist

 
Al Gore says that he could become Catholic under Pope Francis...
 
How Christian writers about the New Age movement distort the truth to deceive their readers to believe that the New Age is about earth worship.

Here are a few quotes from an article by the Come Let Us Reason Ministries. The article is entitled: Pantheism, pledges and earth worship.

"One of the main promoters of this new religion of the earth is none other than Al Gore, [he wrote]... 'Native American religions, for instance, offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the earth. One of the most moving and frequently quoted explanations was attributed to Chief Seattle in 1855, 'Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all' (p. 259).

"The religious views of the main promoters of the environmental movement become apparent as they offer Mother Earth to replace the true and living God."

"Al Gore: 'The spiritual sense of our place in nature... can be traced to the origins of human civilization.... The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity... [I]t seems obvious that a better understanding of a religious heritage preceding our own by so many thousands of years could offer us new insights . . . .'” (p. 260 Earth in the Balance)

"Gore explains what he believes 'My own faith is rooted in the unshakable belief in God a creator and sustainer, a deeply personal interpretation of and relationship with Christ, and an awareness of a constant and holy spiritual presence in all people, all life, and all things.' (p. 265) "Gore is not describing Christianity but new age pantheism." [Gore is describing new age pan[en]theism, not "new age pantheism." Gore is a Christian, he believes in a God that is not only beyond the creation but also within the creation. Pan[en]theists have a less-than-worthy-of worship relationship with Mother Earth.]

In the above quotes, Al Gore is simply saying that Christians can gain some insights from Native American religions and ancient goddess worshiping religions. He is not saying everyone should be converted to an earth worshiping religion.


 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
The general approach to God in the West has been to see Him as transcendent, above and beyond his creation. The approach of the East, on the other hand, is to see God as both transcendent and immanent, or in man and all creation. The New Age is about synthesizing these two approaches.

Wikipedia's information on panentheism says: ...the Buddhist God is absolute and transcendent; this world, being merely its manifestation, is necessarily fragmental and imperfect. [That which is "fragmental and imperfect" is not worshipped by Buddhists, nor is it worshipped by New Agers.]

"In the Gnostic view, there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God, who is beyond all created universes and who never created anything in the sense in which the word 'create' is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) 'emanated' or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God, for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source that they underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, [or the earth] or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence." - (quote from http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm)

David Spangler, one of the leaders of the New Age movement, wrote: The world soul is usually conceived as a "formative force," an active, intelligent, purposeful spiritual presence at work in the material world to guide and guard the course of planetary evolution. It is generally not accorded the status of being the ultimate source [or the unqualified Absolute, God the Father in Heaven] but might be looked upon as a great angelic or archangelic being presiding over the well being of the world, or as the gestalt, the wholeness of all the lives and patterns that manifest upon, and as, the earth [Gaia].
 
By Ray Yungen 

The New Age and Christianity definitely clash on the answer to the question of human imperfection. The former [the New Age] espouses the doctrine of becoming self-realized and united with the universe, which they see as God but in reality is the realm of familiar spirits. On the other hand, the Gospel that Christians embrace offers salvation to humanity through grace (unmerited favor). Romans 3:24 boldly states: “… being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” In Romans 6:23 we read: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This gift is not earned or given as a reward for earnest or good intentions as Scripture clearly states:
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
This Scripture that tackles the issue of pride sharply distinguishes all of man’s religions from Christianity. Religion persuades us that man is innately good and, therefore, can earn his way to heaven through human perfectibility or, better yet, through the realization of his own divinity. Christianity emphatically states the opposite view that man needs to humbly recognize his own sinfulness and fallibility, and consequently needs salvation through grace.
The Holy Spirit, through the Scripture, convicts the sinner of his sinful and lost condition and then presents to the despairing and repentant man God’s solution–salvation through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the Cross: “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7) and then:
[I]f you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9-10)

Continued.......

 
Salvation is entirely a gift of grace bestowed on whoever believes in Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross as both God and man. Consequently, we must receive Him as Lord and Savior, understanding that it is by grace and grace alone that we are made acceptable in Christ before a holy God. Justification is God’s gift to the believer. This saving faith, also a demonstration of God’s grace, is more than an intellectual belief in Jesus’ death on the Cross but involves committing and entrusting one’s life to Jesus as both Lord and Savior–Christ’s going to the Cross was a finished work, and we as believers are now complete in Him. Nothing else can be added to this. How totally opposite from New Age thinking is God’s plan of salvation!
It all comes down to the preaching of the higher self versus the preaching of the Cross. New Agers may say God is synonymous with a person’s higher self, and the experience of God can only be discovered by way of meditation. However, the Christian admits his or her sinfulness before a Holy God and remembers he is saved only by the grace and mercy of God through the sacrificial shedding of Christ’s blood for his sins.
The message of Jesus Christ reaches out to the lost human race with the love of God who sacrificed His only begotten Son for the Swami Muktanandas of the world. The Bible teaches that man has an inherently rebellious and ungodly nature (which is evident), and his ways are naturally self-centered and evil in the sight of God. The Bible teaches that God is not indifferent to us. The sacrifice of Christ for the ungodly to reconcile us to God reveals the Lord’s love toward Man.
.........
This explains why Christianity must be steadfast on these issues. If a belief system does not teach the preaching of the Cross, then it is not “the power of God” (I Corinthians 1:18). If other ways are correct, “then Christ died in vain,” rendering His shed blood unnecessary and immaterial (Galatians 2:21).
Because of this conflict, we can safely assume that Christianity is the most formidable obstacle to the New Age, standing like a bulwark against this tidal wave of meditation teachers and practical mystics. But, incredibly, many of the most successful practical mystics are appearing from within Christendom itself. Ironically, instead of stemming the momentum of New Age spirituality, it is our own churches that may very well be the decisive catalysts to propel this movement into prominence. Certain spiritual practices are becoming entrenched in our churches that, like an iceberg, seem beautiful and impressive on the surface but in reality will cause severe damage and compromise of truth. (from A Time of Departing, pp.24-26)
 
"The New Age and Christianity definitely clash on the answer to the question of human imperfection. The former [the New Age] espouses the doctrine of becoming self-realized and united with the universe, which they see as God..." This is a false (incomplete) and deceptive statement by Ray Yungen.

In the Gnostic view [and also in the New Age view], there is a true, ultimate and transcendent God ... He (or, It) 'emanated' or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible [i.e., He brought forth from within Himself the universe/cosmos.] In a certain sense, it may therefore be true to say that all is God [Yungen wrote: "the universe, which they see as God"], for all consists of the substance of God. By the same token, it must also be recognized that many portions of the original divine essence have been projected so far from their source [or the true, ultimate and transcendent God] that they [or almost everything in the universe/cosmos] underwent unwholesome changes in the process. To worship the cosmos, or nature, or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshiping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence."

New Agers worship the true, ultimate and transcendent God and they view the universe as a corrupt and less-than-worthy-of-worship manifestation of God.
 
Thank you, Grant.
 
What a shock!

Two close associates of Pope Francis (i.e. spokesmen for Pope Francis) condemn "conservative American Catholics" for aligning with conservative Evangelicals in support of President Trump's policies of "hate." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/europe/vatican-us-catholic-conservatives.html

Obviously, it was crystal clear that Francis opposed Trump's candidacy and would have preferred Hillary ... you know ... that Crooked Hillary that fully supported (by force, with taxpayers' money)Planned Parenthood, abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, open borders for illegal immigrants, she was the architect of the war-spreading disaster known as "Arab Spring," her money making schemes via the "Clinton Foundation," pay to play frauds amounting into the hundreds of millions, Benghazi(by toppling Ghadafi in Libya "we came, we saw, he died ... hee, hee, hee"), her Muslim Brotherhood connections, more wars in the Middle East, etc., etc.

Yep, Mr. Pope, Hillary and the lunatic left sure do represent the politics of "love."


 
1 Corinthians 15:50-53King James Version (KJV)

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


 
Report: Hillary Clinton wants to become a Methodist Minister ...

Check this out as reported on Zero Hedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-08/aspiring-pastor-hillary-goes-seances-and-spiritcooks-bible-thumping
 
Ray B, all roads may lead to Rome yet not all Roman Roads are straight though broad they be. The way of the Jesuit is secret and winding and upon it he wears many cloaks. What better way for him exists than to turn the soil of the reformation to desert! He weave his way through the gardens of Protestantism, uprooting its very foundations by planting weeds wherever an untended patch is spotted. Through their very parishes he paves his plan, changing his cloak for that of a Lutheran, a Baptist or a Methodist preacher all the while clutching a print of Loyola to his breast and inwardly reciting his IHS extreme oath of induction.

Hillary, albeit a woman, seems a prime example of such mischief.
 
Thomas Dahlheimer,

Before I respond more fully to your comment #401, I have a couple questions. First of all, you’ve previously stated that the Father “emanated a part of Himself from out of the center of His heart” resulting in the Son. You then wrote, “When the Son's emanated existence took place God the Father created light for His Son to live in.” Thus, the Father is a creator. More importantly, I must ask why the Father created light for His Son to live in. Could the Son not live with the Father in the Father’s ‘domain’? If not, why not?

I suspect this was a necessity, which implies that the emanated Son is a lesser Deity than the Father. In fact, this seems a necessary aspect for your theology to remain logically coherent, as surely the Father (“Unqualified Absolute”) could not succumb to “original sin” as the Son had, could S/He/It?

Also, if I understand you correctly, the “world soul” is lesser in status than the “god” (the Son) within humans. Assuming I’m correct, what happens to the “world soul” once matter is destroyed and all the individual ‘gods’ in each human is reunited with the Son?

 
Craig,

The true, ultimate and transcendent God never created anything in the sense in which the word “create” is ordinarily understood. While this True God did not fashion or create anything, He (or, It) “emanated” or brought forth from within Himself the substance of all there is in all the worlds, visible and invisible. [He also emanated "created" pre-matter or pre-physical universe LIGHT, which all matter is made of.]

Craig you asked: More importantly, I must ask why the Father created light for His Son to live in. Could the Son not live with the Father in the Father’s ‘domain’? If not, why not?

The Father desired to give His Son a free will so that the Son could CHOOSE to obey and love Him. The Son, or all of us together as One, failed to do so. This was the original sin, that is why when life came forth on earth three and one-half billion years ago, so did death and corruption. Back then, every living thing eventually died. Death and corruption did not enter the world when the first human ("Adam') sinned. This is a scientific fact. So, Jesus Christ could not have died on a cross to save us from the negative consequence of the "stain" of "Adams original sin" on our souls.]

Graig you also asked: ....if I understand you correctly, the “world soul” is lesser in status than the “god” (the Son) within humans. Assuming I’m correct, what happens to the “world soul” once matter is destroyed and all the individual ‘gods’ in each human is reunited with the Son? [There are not "individual 'gods' in each human," we are gods, and when we are all enlightened we will be the restored Divine Son.]

There is a divine realm in us. When humans reach this realm they enter into the divine realm of the Son. The Son is not "within humans", we are the Son. A part of the Son is corrupted. It consists of humans who are not enlightened. Both parts of the Son, together as one, are essentially the world soul. When all the parts of the Son have become enlightened the world soul's existence will end and all matter will be destroyed. We will, then, be liberated and united with our Father and Jesus Christ in Heaven, forever.
 
Thomas Dahlheimer,

Your claim that “the Father” (“Unqualified Absolute”) never created anything, but rather “emanated” part of Him/Itself (the “light” which was “emanated” for “the Son”, which subsequently became manifest as the physical universe upon the Son’s “original sin”) is pantheistic, whether you wish to acknowledge this or not. Logically, you cannot state that a part of something is simultaneously not a part of that same thing.

Moreover, you cannot claim that we are all “the Son”, yet only part of “the Son” is affected by “original sin” while there yet remains a part of “the Son” which is untainted (the “Christ Consciousness”). So, which is it—is the Son parted up or non-parted? You cannot have both.

Implicit in your theology is the notion that the Son is not on par with the Father. He’s in some sort of subordinate position, with, presumably, inferior attributes in some fashion. Yet you’ve claimed that once matter is destroyed the Son will miraculously be so equal to the Father that the Son and Father can and will become One again. Once again, you cannot have it both ways. If the “emanated” Son is not equal in stature to the Father, as evidenced by your claim that the Son was given “free will” to rebel against the Father, then it’s clear they are two separate entities—even though the Son was “emanated” as “part of” the Father.

You wrote: Death and corruption did not enter the world when the first human ("Adam') sinned. This is a scientific fact. Really? According to what “science”?

You wrote earlier: New Agers believe that neither the "inter earth", which is spiritual, nor the "outer earth", which is matter, will attain "full divinity", nor do we believe that both will attain divinity, we believe that only humans attain divinity. You wrote just above (4:50 PM) quoting Spangler: The world soul is usually conceived as a "formative force," an active, intelligent, purposeful spiritual presence at work in the material world to guide and guard the course of planetary evolution. It is generally not accorded the status of being the ultimate source [or the unqualified Absolute, God the Father in Heaven] but might be looked upon as a great angelic or archangelic being presiding over the well being of the world, or as the gestalt, the wholeness of all the lives and patterns that manifest upon, and as, the earth [Gaia]. Yet, in your most recent comment you claim: Both parts of the Son, together as one, are essentially the world soul.

I understood by “inter earth” that you were referring to the “world soul”, that is, “world soul” would be the soul of the earth. What am I missing here?

 

To qoute someone on truth...

"Truth is singular. 
That is to say, truth is a single entity.
It does not exist in bits and pieces of unrelated ideas or disconnected data.
The Bible most often uses the definite article when speaking of the truth.
Truth can never be merely a truth, as if it exists in fragments from various sources.
Truth is not a collection of ideologies gleaned from detached sources.
It can never be found in a study of comparative religions or competing philosophies.
Instead, all truth is found in the one true God.
Because truth is one body of truth, it is always internally consistent.
It never contradicts itself.

Truth always speaks with one voice and is always in perfect agreement with itself.
It is always in harmony with everything else it says, since each aspect of truth is congruent with the sum of its parts."





 
In light of that comment, GrantNZ...that's why I wish Mr. Dahlheimer and Craig's conversation was taken off blog to continue elsewhere. I don't see this as helpful in the bits and pieces dragged out a little at a time.
Seems like their own conversation and unnecessary here, to me, anyway. Don't mean to offend, just think it is somewhat a distraction to what could be talked about here at Constance Cumbey's blog.
But whatever. That is just my opinion.
 
Perhaps Craig could invite Thomas Dahlheimer over to his blog or vice versa? Then, anyone wanting to follow their discussion could click on a link either one of them may leave.
 
New book in my library: HUMANITY AT RISK, THE NEED FOR GLOBAL GOVERNANCE by GUESS WHO?

Google it!

Constance
 
As to my 10:14 entry, HINT #2:

FINAL CHAPTER - CONCLUSION: "HOW TO MANAGE A CHANGING WORLD".

Dahlheimer should probably and sadly love it!

Constance


 
We have an extremely dangerous situation with North Korea; however, I can't help but wonder if this is not a "CRISIS=OPPORTUNITY" moment for the Global Governance crowd along with their other rationales of Populism & Xenophobia.

Constance
 
You will be chipped eventually - USA TODAY

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/08/09/you-get-chipped-eventually/547336001/


 
Anon. 7:13 and 7:38...

That's why I've always felt that a discussion board / forum is better suited to discussing the New Age Movement, NOT the comments section of a blog. You can have different threads for different topics / discussions.

If only I had the time to set one up....
 
Craig,

I agree with you! If a person's theology views the creation/universe as being even a part of God, even if that part of God is not considered to be divine and is therefore not worshiped, it can rightfully be described as a type of pantheism. It can also rightfully be described as a type of panentheism.

I think that you are trying to understand my theology, but I believe that because you are caught up in a religious delusion your "logic" does not make any sense! If Christians could just understand what the New Age spiritual philosophy is all about they would be converted to it.

You wrote: You wrote: Death and corruption did not enter the world when the first human ("Adam') sinned. This is a scientific fact. Really? According to what “science”? This statement of yours indicates to me that you, like all other Christians, are living in an extreme fantasy world. Did you ever go to High School and take a biology class? If you did, you would have learned about evolution. I believe that Christianity is like a mental illness, that it's like schizophrenia, people with this mental illness are not able to reason logically and then understand reality.

Spangler wrote: "The world soul is usually conceived as a "formative force," an active, intelligent, purposeful spiritual presence at work in the material world to guide and guard the course of planetary evolution." The collective consciousness of all enlightened and unenlightened human beings is essentially the "formative force" or world soul that is at work to guide and guard the course of planetary evolution.
 
Marko @ 8:12 AM, if only you'd take the time you spend here being a hypocrite and set one up for your very own self!
 
Craig's responses to Dahlheimer are very relevant.

Constance
 
No curiosity on the book authorship HUMANITY AT RISK that I cited above?
OK, for all the disinterested and apathetic, the answer is JAVIER SOLANA as co-author/editor of the book and author of the chapter HOW TO MANAGE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE. He's still very much in the picture. Whether he's the #1 leader or not, the goals of the crowd are an all encompassing global political and economic system and IMHO, they are advancing fast on their agenda unless frustrated before as they were in 1982.

Constance
 
Have already done a look up and have passed on the info to others. As always, thank you.

I still watch him. Solana isn't out of the game yet...he is cutting edge on this.
The whole governance endeavor looks to be going full steam ahead to me also, Constance.




BTW Craig's responses to Dahlheimer are great. But wonder if this is the place for that discussion, too. Maybe it is, but maybe not?
 
have you read Homo Deus? scary stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pXfUROEuVQ
 
"BTW Craig's responses to Dahlheimer are great. But wonder if this is the place for that discussion, too. Maybe it is, but maybe not?"

My thoughts exactly!
 
Thomas Dahlheimer,

I know I’ve won the argument when the individual with whom I’m arguing resorts to ad hominem rather than substantively refuting the points I’ve made.

First I’ll address your objection regarding evolution with an article which rather succinctly covers the relevant issues:

What Is Darwinism?

…Darwinism is a theory of empirical science only at the level of microevolution [as opposed to macroevolution, or “Neo-Darwinism”], where it provides a framework for explaining phenomena such as the diversity that arises when small populations become reproductively isolated from the main body of the species. As a general theory of biological creation [macroevolution] Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on the nonscientific assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is inherently antithetical to theism, although evolution in some entirely different and nonnaturalistic sense could conceivably (if not demonstrably) have been God’s chosen method of creation [bold added].

Next I’ll address the primary problem with your belief system, which is theological. In essence, your view is bitheistic (two gods), including both the Father (“Unqualified Absolute”), and the Son, the latter being a lesser deity. Presumably, the Father would not even have the potential to “sin”, whereas the Son not only had this possibility built-in but eventually succumbed to it. Yet even though the Son had the apparent propensity to sin and actually did so—resulting in the light’s (the light being the domain in which the Father deemed the Son was to live) transformation to the ‘evil’ physical universe—upon the Son’s return to his pre-fallen state via “Christ Consciousness”, He will become ‘one’ with the Father. This is despite the fact that the Son is clearly an inferior deity (His propensity to sin). How is that logical? How can the Son, with His separate will (never mind the individual wills inside each “Son” currently within the physical outer shell of each and every human) ever truly be ‘one’ with His Father?

That’s not to mention, as I pointed out above, the illogicality of the Son being whole, yet a part of the Son succumbed to sin while another part (the “Christ Consciousness”) did not.

An implicit bitheism (at the least) is inherent in all strands of Gnosticism and neognosticism I’ve encountered. That is, the ‘god’ within all physical matter is implicitly a lesser deity than the Father, aka Unqualified Absolute (or Bailey’s “the One About Whom Naught Can Be Said”, etc.). I mean, is it ever possible that the Father could be bound up in matter? Nope, not according to your theology and all other forms of Gnosticism. This clearly implies that the Father (“Unqualified Absolute”, etc.) is superior. That’s two gods (at least).

 
Graig,

There is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. How many Gods is your one God?

When people become psychologically addicted to a particular religion, like Christianity or Islam, they can not accept scientifically discovered truth that proves that their religion is fundamentally false, or a supernatural hoax, as is Christianity and Islam. Is the earth flat with a foundation that is fixed and will never be moved? And are there pillars holding the sky up? And are the stars little lights in the sky that are about the same distance from the earth as the sun and moon? Is the earth standing still and will never be moved? And is there water above the stars, moon and sun? And is God above that water looking down on the earth that is standing still and will never be moved? Is the Garden of Eden story in the Bible a myth (as scientific discovery has proven) that people long ago took literally and then established the central doctrine/dogma of the Christian religion on? Why do Christians continue to believe that the Bible scriptures are telling the truth when it has unequivocally been proven by scientific discovery that they do not always tell the true?
 
So, once again Mr. Dahlheimer you cannot defend your own religion against assertions of its inherent illogic. Why not refute my points directly?

A proper understanding of the Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--is not tritheistic (three gods) but Trinitarian.
 
David Spangler wrote: From an inner point of view, Gaia or the World Soul [which I have suggested is essentially the collective consciousness of all enlightened (think "ascended masters") and unenlightened humans] is a highly complex, powerful, loving, and creative spiritual presence ... Gaia provides a mirror in which to see ourselves anew. It inspires us to reflect on our own natures, on the meaning and destiny of humanity. Lovelock paved the way for this in his book Gaia in which he first presented the Gaia Hypothesis. In the last chapter, he suggested that humanity might be the evolving nervous system [which includes an evolving "brain" that the world soul's spiritual consciousness utilizes] of the earth, the means by which Gaia achieves self-awareness.
 
So, Graig the proper understanding of the Father and Son being One God is not bitheism (two Gods) but Biitarian.
 
Sorry Mr. Dahlheimer, your theology implies bitheism rather than binitarianism. One of your 'gods' succumbed to sin. What kind of god has a propensity towards sin?
 
Craig said to Thomas Dahlheimer @ 12:52 AM (in part):

"Next I’ll address the primary problem with your belief system, which is theological."

Craig,

Mr. Dahlheimer's "problem" is not based on his false theological belief system, but rather, on the fact that he has rejected the light found only in Jesus Christ and the sole authority upon which all "religious" truth is based, that being the Word of God.

Rejecting the truth of Christ and His all-authoritative Word is not due to a person's confusion, or some philosophical, or even a "religious" reason fueled by false thinking. Christ and His truth is rejected because of the sinner's love for darkness. In effect, they truly have a death wish.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." John 3:19

Without the new birth, the natural, sinful man CANNOT understand, nor receive (with faith) what the Author of God's Word has declared. Sinful man will ALWAYS cling to a false religious "theology" that comports with their sinful, rebellious lifestyle. Mankind rejects Christ because they have no natural ability to repent of their sins to the extent that their souls will be saved ("But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith." James 3:11). Only the sovereign act of God can overcome a sinner's rebellion. (See John 6:44, Ephesians 2:8,9)

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

This man has proven himself to be a blaspheming heretic over and over again. What does Scripture state about dealing with a person such as this?

"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject: Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10,11
 
Ray B @ 1:39 PM, Amen to that!
 
My hard copy of HOLONOMICS by Simon & Maria Robinson has arrived.

There is an old saying, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." As I am clearly one of those destined in the thinking of Dahlheimer and think-alikes, for the fate spelled out in the Alice Bailey books of "the destruction of the form", New Age speak for elimination of elements unfavorable to them, I keep a close eye on what he and the others are saying and how THEY believe their agenda to be advancing.

I will be doing my radio program, www.TheMicroEffect.com live in the morning, 10 Eastern Time, 9 Central time; 8 Mountain Time and 7 am Pacific time.

It would be nice if you could join the chatroom there and/or call in live to 208-935-0094.

Constance
 
To Thomas Dahlheimer, 9:23, David Spangler had very nice things to say about Lucifer, too. What do you say to that?

I do have 3 books in my personal library from what is now called Lucis Press, back when they initially published under LUCIFER PUBLISHING COMPANY. Sitting immediately behind me is INITIATION HUMAN AND SOLAR, Lucifer Publishing Co., Copyright 1922 by Alice A. Bailey.

As for me, I'll trust the my fate to the Holy Trinity of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit before entrusting myself to "Gaia" and Lucifer.

Constance
 
To Nancy Reyes,

I shall check out the Homo Deus youtube link. Thank you for calling my attention to it.

Contance
 

Hi All,

Thanks Nancy for the link .... check this vdeo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BK5Q_Dblo

Discription of the video reads...

"Techno-Religions and Silicon Prophets: Will the 21st century be shaped by hi-tech gurus or by religious zealots – or are they the same thing?
What is the current status of religions and ideologies in the world, and what will be the likely impact of 21st-century technological breakthroughs on religion and ideology?
Will traditional religions and ideologies—from Christianity and Islam to Liberalism and Socialism—manage to survive the technological and economic revolutions of the 21st century?
What would be the place of Islam, for example, in a world of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence?
The talk addresses these questions, and argues that the future belongs to techno-religions, which promise salvation through technology, and which are already gathering believers in places such as Silicon Valley. "

My comment...
When I look at the how much of a role that entertainment in it various guises plays in the western churchs you can see the potential for " techno religions" foothold.
The converts of the new priests of this generation in the west seem to be the "Christian Concert Crowd"... musicians have become the new preachers. The lack of decerning the difference between soulish experience or the work of the Holy Spirit could easily provide the avenue for "techno religion".
 
anon re Craig v dahlheimer - this is the place because this is the REAL new age the politics is a
product of this.

Constance, excellent article a good refocus to the "spiritual" side of the politics.

there is an individual advantage type new age among conservatives a classic example is http://rayelan.com/TemplarProsperityMeditation.htm by owner of rumormill news
masonic background influence on Rayelan.

for my supporting the Constitution against old articles of confederation and 16th amendment
legitimacy, Joe McNeil blocked me from themicroeffect.com "403: forbidden"

anon re dead can't possess people - idiot, she did all that WHILE ALIVE. I HAVE
REPEATEDLY SAID SHE DID THESE THINGS WHILE I WAS A CHILD.

libellous anon kindly quote me what posts I made were "blasphemous." explain exactly
why they constitute "blasphemy." or apologize.

Orthodox hinduism ALWAYs rejected the tantra, upanishads were not vedic in nature
but some other kind of thing. vedic is polytheistic with heavens, hells and reincarnations.
upanishads became prominent in some circles and took the lead in vedanta a development
of the past 200 years or less. the baghavad Gita develops both threads with all an illusion
projected by Krishna so nothing is real so there is no sin and murder an illusion as there is no
killer and no killed - easily one of the most evil books ever written.

http://watch-unto-prayer.org/lgbtq-infiltrators-facilitators.html
How Evangelicals Lost the Culture War Before it Started LGBTQ Infiltrators & Facilitators
Rev Thomas Littleton

https://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2017/08/sept-23-ad-2017-recurring-event-of-no.html based partly on https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/what-will-happen-september-23-2017/

Ray Yungen re contemplative spirituality and seducing spirits - I was talking about what
he said was in a video regarding reiki and energy healing that energies are real people do project
them from their hands. that is not saying they are good or if natural divine. PAUL DEFINES DOCTRINES
OF DEVILS AS FORBIDDING CERTAIN FOODS (modern Mosaic Law kosher Hebrew Roots, etc.
followers take note) AND FORBIDDING MARRIAGE (gnostic cults often preferred extreme asceticism
because of hating material creation not want more born.)

Constance has said a mass possession event might occur resulting in massacre of Christians.
well, reiki and at least one other movement has said (or the demons involved have said) that when
enough people are initiated then the spirits can operate more freely. in other words, reach critical
mass and something very bad can happen. of course they don't call it bad.

http://technocracy.studio/e/proof-positive-of-technocracys-engame/#respond
 
RayB,

My specific point in addressing Dahlheimer’s ‘primary problem with his belief system, which is theological’ was over against his cosmological beliefs, which are also logically incoherent, springing from the former. In any case, you overstate the obvious in your citations of John 3:19, etc.; and Titus 3:10-11 arguably refers to a divisive person within the Church, not a non-believer (see v. 9).

You (and some of the anons) seem to have missed the point of this particular blog, which is to discuss the New Age movement. You also seem to forget that you are not the blog host, but rather guests here. If Constance feels my responses to Dahlheimer are “very relevant”, then who are you to suggest implicitly (while said anons are explicit) otherwise?

I agree, of course, with your statement regarding John 6:44 and Eph 2:8-9, but then what about the Great Commission in which we are commanded to make disciples? And what of Jude 1:22-23 and James 5:19-20? Mr. Dahlheimer has been speaking out against what he perceives are flaws in Christianity. Perhaps if he sees the logical incongruity in his own theology he may be inclined to rethink it? Perhaps that could serve as a gateway?

 
Constance re: 1:17 AM,

You must have missed Dahlheimer's statements that Satan is not Lucifer and that the latter is a benevolent character in his theology. This is not inconsistent with Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. Lucifer is conceived as a "fallen angel". From the Lucis Trust site is an article titled The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer Here’s the appropriate excerpt:

Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer.

More detail is given in Descent and Sacrifice:

…there is so much confusion and misunderstanding concerning the "fallen angels" of which Lucifer is the best known representative.

The secret of the "fallen angels" is essentially the mystery which lies behind the very Plan of evolution, for the solar angels' willingness to "fall", to sacrifice themselves in order to bring the light of the principle of mind to what was then animal man, marked the coming into action of the great Law of Duality by which matter, form—negative and passive—could be quickened by spirit. This act of sacrifice at the dawn of human history is a thread woven throughout the great scriptures and mythologies of the world, including the myth of Prometheus who stole fire (mind) for man, and the biblical story of the Prodigal Son, who left the Father’s home to embark upon the path of experience in the life of form and the senses—the journey to "the far country".


This apparently refers to the Spangler/Dahlheimer “world soul”.

 
Who cares, Chritine? You're not exactly 'Orthodox'-yourself! The fact is, chakras were first mentioned in Hindu texts and are therefore Hindu in origin: deal with it!

If you were treating people at the microeffect the way you've treated Physicist, paul, Craig and others, then Joe McNeil is right to have blocked you there ... it's time you were code 403 forbidden and blocked from here too.

Your poor and longsuffering mother! If she knew you're shacked up out of wedlock with an unrepentant "ex" Satanist, and clairvoyant dabbling witch (your: "Resident Seer"), she'd be rolling in her grave!

Be gone from here MCE, you're unwelcome and persona non gratia, be gone I say!
 
Dear Constance,

Please ban Miss Erikson from your blog, yet again, she has spoken despicably of our Paul (paul), calling him evil for pointing out the obvious and for taking a Biblical approach towards parents, and has decided to continue her 'argument' here, whilst omitting, and trying to gloss over, that nastiness of hers included in her earlier rant.

She attacked:

"paul, YOU HAVE PROVEN YOU ARE EVIL, by shrugging off psychic invasion by my biological so
called mother making me say things I didn't even think of and was puzzled why I was saying them
and calling it normal manipulation of children by parents"

She made this latest addition to her album of vile attacks towards the end of page 3 on the previous topic. Which begs the question why has she chosen to continue her charade here if not to cause yet further upset to the blog? If at all, why didn't she reply on the previous topic page where her rants and others rebuttal of such took place?

Must we continue to endure her channeled garbage of aliens, chakras, orange blobs and all the other nonsense she soaks up and spews here, with the encouragement of her unrepentant "ex" Satanist and clairvoyant in residence with whom she is shacked?

So many decent posters have already left due to her wickedness. Please ban her immediately and indefinitely.

Thank you!
 
Craig,

Regarding your reference of verse 9 of Titus Chapter 3, that verse is addressing "vain" controversies that are unrelated to heresies. In constrast, verses 10 & 11 specifically states how the Christian is commanded to deal with a person clinging to heresies. Clearly, AFTER the "first or second admonition," a heretic (i.e. ANY heretic) is to be "rejected" because of their firm opposition to the truth. Mr. Dahlheimer has expressed, in no uncertain terms, his firm beliefs in a multiple array of heresies.

You state (in part) in paragraph 2:

"If Constance feels my responses to Dahlheimer are “very relevant”, then who are you to suggest implicitly (while said anons are explicit) otherwise?"

Clearly, you believe you are above criticism on this blog due to the fact that Constance believes your responses to Dahlheimer are "very relevant." Although this is Constance's blog, I'm not aware that she holds to a policy that forbids commentary on topics that she does not necessarily agree with. If she did, I certainly would be the first to leave.

You also state that we are "commanded to make disciples." We are, but the first requirement in making a disciple is to have a BELIEVER to work with. One cannot learn how to be a follower of Christ without first believing in Him. Your ongoing debate on "theological" points might be appealing to you from an intellectual standpoint, but it fails to deal with the PRIMARY issue, "what think ye of Christ?"

You also state (in part):

"Mr. Dahlheimer has been speaking out against what he perceives are flaws in Christianity. Perhaps if he sees the logical incongruity in his own theology he may be inclined to rethink it? Perhaps that could serve as a gateway?"

What he really is is a scorner of God's truth. With a scorner (and I have dealt with many over the years), you may "win" one point, but they will quickly find another from which they will use to prove that you are wrong!

Again, what does he think of Christ? All other "arguments" begin and end with Him.





 
Ray B., your appeal to the plain truth of Holy Scripture unblemished by the blind pride of men who are wise in their own eyes is refreshing indeed! I'm refering to your forthright and humble reply to Craig, for whom it may be said: quorum se meritis, quod ingenio et caeca humilitatem!
 
Pope Francis spurns horoscopes and fortune tellers, urges faith in Christ instead

"Reflecting on Sunday's Gospel at his address before his weekly Angelus prayer, Pope Francis said that those who "consult the horoscopes and fortune tellers," instead of clinging to the word of the Lord, "begin to sink."

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/13/pope-spurns-horoscopes-fortune-tellers-urges-faith-instead/




 
Anon@8:36 p.m.

The editor of that particular Jesuit publication is a Protestant minister.


 
"anon re Craig v dahlheimer - this is the place because this is the REAL new age the politics is a
product of this."
Well, duh. So who doesn't know that that frequents this blog? You and Dahlheimer (both only keyboard warriors) are two peas in a pod, using the same tactics to turn blogs into sludge with their onslaught of errors.
Sorry, but not all that helpful (though gallant, Craig I'll give you that) in the attempt to expose and correct the errors of people bent on proudly displaying them. Why give them so much room taking up space? Going toe to toe. Do that somewhere else and leave this blind sort to the ditch he has fallen in and loves to revel in.
It is God with Mercy to reach him if he ever will be. Enough already. Jesus didn't argue with the Pharisees. He simply told the truth and then left them to argue with themselves while He moved on leaving them to their error and reaching out to those who really did want to know the truth. That is wise. And cuts to the chase on topics instead of this type of back and forth going nowhere, dragged out and dragging on.


Dahlheimer only wants a venue to get his massively unreasoned and unreasonable stab at sounding scientific and educated when anything but. Serves his low-brow purpose better than serves this blog...Do we really have to stand knee deep in a flood of sewer (non-thinking sewage for the mind) to know it stinks?
Just like your lowbrow attempts at telling us how expert you are, MCE, when you haven't got the sense God gave a goose about basically any topic you hammer to death and still prove you know pretty much Nothing that relates to real time, real life, real issues, in whatever age! Go get your own heart and head straight and then maybe when or if you come back here something will make sense of what you post. paul told you were wrong in your "fight" about exposing the New Age. He was dead-on. Your ideas are just dead. God's weapons (Galatians 6 just like he told you) actually fights error and subdues it. You just come here to fight. Take your ridiculous air boxing match back to your own blog and swing away...and never land a real glove against any real problem, anywhere, at any time.
Here's an idea..how 'bout you go get a real life to start with. Instead of living like a parasite. That is what your life looks like as you have told us way way way too much about yourself. Enough of you too already! Once a week and you are still as full of yourself as ever. What misery..and you think we need to know about all about it? You're sorely mistaken.

Erikson, that isn't your mother's fault. That's yours.
 
Pope Francis spurns horoscopes and fortune tellers, urges faith in Christ instead

"Reflecting on Sunday's Gospel at his address before his weekly Angelus prayer, Pope Francis said that those who "consult the horoscopes and fortune tellers," instead of clinging to the word of the Lord, "begin to sink."

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/08/13/pope-spurns-horoscopes-fortune-tellers-urges-faith-instead/

6:57 PM, Christine should take note!
 
"Dahlheimer only wants a venue to get his massively unreasoned and unreasonable stab at sounding scientific and educated when anything but. Serves his low-brow purpose better than serves this blog...Do we really have to stand knee deep in a flood of sewer (non-thinking sewage for the mind) to know it stinks?
Just like your lowbrow attempts at telling us how expert you are, MCE, when you haven't got the sense God gave a goose about basically any topic you hammer to death and still prove you know pretty much Nothing that relates to real time, real life, real issues, in whatever age! Go get your own heart and head straight and then maybe when or if you come back here something will make sense of what you post."

Anonymous 7:47 PM, an excellent and astute post if ever there was one: direct, succinct and telling it as it is.

I couldn't have written such admonishing and heartfelt truth better myself!
 
Hinduism

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/brahma.html

"However, since we are here now, we must understand that Saraswati was reconciled enough with Brahma to enable him to create the human race in partnership with her. It is also notable that, akin to the fall of Adam from the grace of God and the subsequent loss of Eden, the lust of Brahma signifies the downfall of humanity. Hinduism believes that basic desires hinder total salvation from the cycle of births and rebirths. Total salvation, in Hinduism, is the reconciliation of the individual soul with the Nirguna Brahman, ..."

"It is symbolic that the God that was the first manifestation of the Brahman fell prey to that which prolongs separation from the Brahman. So it is that creation succeeded -- through the fall of Brahma and Saraswati from absolute sublimity."

"Shiva [a holy manifestation of Brahman] was angered at this lie. He [therefore] cursed Brahma with the horror of not ever being worshiped on earth ..."

From the Hindu view, we have a created God, Brahma, who gave in to a sinful temptation, which caused him to become corrupted to the degree that he would never, rightfully, be worshiped by people living in this corrupt-from-its-origins world that the corrupted god Brahma created. Hindus do not worship the Creator, nor do they worship the creation. Scientific discovery tells us that the creation was corrupt from its origins. There were three and one-half billion years of death and corrupted on earth before the first humans ("Adam and Eve") came forth on earth. http://www.towahkon.org/FoxTheology.html

Gnosticism

http://gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

"All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have their own -- perhaps quite startling -- view of these matters: they hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner."

"Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers."

The Hindus and the Gnostics do not worship the corrupt Creator and neither do they worship the corrupt creation. The New Agers' theology is suppose to be similar to both the Eastern religions' and the Gnostic religion's theology. So, why do so many Christian writes say that the New Age is about worshiping the creation or Mother Earth?
 
Clear off Dahlheimer! Brahma along with Shiva and Vishnu, if not just the savage imaginations of a deluded and wicked people, are most certainly demons!

Unlike Craig, I won't play your evil game. You are an unregenerate viper full of poison and blasphemy, slithering and hissing as you go
the primrose way to the everlasting bonfire!


Matthew 7.13 springs to mind. I suggest you take heed and repent forthwith, you wicked and deluded stomach-churning heathen!
 
Trollheimer, Dullheimer, not-so-clever-after-all-heimer, you're redirected to, www.politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com , where you'll find a like-minded individual with whom you can discuss the cycle of Brahma and chakras and why they're supposedly dismissed by 'Orthodox Hinduism' (although both Hindu concepts in origin), though chakras according to that lying and deluded blog's owner are compatible with Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

I'm sure you two will get on like a house on fire, and unless you repent, will both (along with her live-in co-fornicating clairvoyant), will find your sorry end forever meet for all who play with matches!
 
9:05 AM
So why do you care what we, or anyone else believes, or insist we care about what you believe since your religion is soulless, aimless, and so willfully willing to deny what is eternal to begin with?

With no answers yourself, and dishonest about that, with no trajectory that meets the need of the human condition and beyond, why do you even bother with the questions? Your own inner turmoil is showing.

You have a very deep unresolved jealousy going on that you refuse to deal with.
It is you who needs to be asking yourself some questions....that leave the rest of us out of the equation.
Why remain so shallow?

 
"Why remain so shallow?" 10:10 AM, depth doesn't seem to be old Dullheimer's forté, though through the depths of depravity dives and the depths of Sheol await him.

No, not clever at all, boasting, conniving, and bursting with copy and pastes, unable and unwilling to understand the true nature of the Holy Triune God, he'd rather follow unfounded fables and run after tooth-faeries than humble his rebellious nature and repent in obedience to the one true omnipotent, Omnipresent and omniscient Just and Loving God!

Yes, all that Deluded and Delirious Dahlheimer has to offer is dead, hollow and shallow indeed!
 
"Why remain so shallow?" 10:10 AM, depth doesn't seem to be old Dullheimer's forté, though through the depths of depravity he nose-dives and the depths of Sheol await him.

No, he's not clever at all, he's belligerent, boastful, conniving, and bursting with copy and pastes. In his blind arrogance and willful ignorance he is lost in the cess of Gnosticism, as stubborn as a mushroom stuck to manure, making him unable and unwilling to understand the true nature of the Holy Triune God, he'd rather follow unfounded fables and run after tooth-faeries than humble his rebellious nature and repent in obedience to the one true omnipotent, Omnipresent and omniscient Just and Loving God!

 
Yes, all that Deluded and Delirious Dahlheimer has to offer is dead, hollow and shallow indeed!
 

Anon 12:52 PM

Re: I'm refering to your forthright and humble reply to Craig, for whom it may be said: quorum se meritis, quod ingenio et caeca humilitatem!

Oh yeah???? You do and you'll clean it up!!!!!
 
RayB,

You wrote: Clearly, you believe you are above criticism on this blog due to the fact that Constance believes your responses to Dahlheimer are "very relevant." Although this is Constance's blog, I'm not aware that she holds to a policy that forbids commentary on topics that she does not necessarily agree with. If she did, I certainly would be the first to leave.

So, let me get this straight. Constance explicitly stated that my comments to Dahlheimer (D) are “very relevant” here in apparent response to others who stated that this blog may not be the place for this discussion, and when I respond to your subsequent comment criticizing me for engaging with D you reply that I believe I’m ‘above criticism’? Where did you get that?! It’s one thing for you to criticize the substance of my comments to D, it’s quite another for you to essentially say that I should not continue in my responses to D—after Constance already voiced her approval for them—based upon your interpretation of Scripture. THAT takes some hubris! So, your interpretation of Scripture takes precedence over the blog host’s (implicitly), as well as mine?!

In my response to you I merely made it clear that I don’t subscribe to some of your interpretations of Scripture relative to this discussion. That hardly makes me one who thinks I’m ‘above criticism’. I simply disagree with you. And by your own standards that you just laid out, I certainly don’t have to listen to you, as it necessarily cuts both ways.

Of course Constance allows dissenting views, as D is proof. But it’s disappointing that you and other professing Christians would criticize another Christian (me) for engaging with a non-Christian (D) as he denigrates the faith we share. If someone wishes to denigrate my faith (D, e.g.), then that is their free speech right, but then said individual shouldn’t be surprised when I defend my faith while challenging theirs. And I certainly cannot challenge one’s faith unless I understand his—hence, my line of questioning. Otherwise, I’m attacking a straw man. Just like D has been doing to Christianity—attacking his own straw man version of it.

As regards Titus 3, I checked a number of different translations, including the NKJV, and most have 9 through 11 as part of one paragraph, though some of these also include (portions of) verse 8 (the KJV, of course, does not have ANY paragraphs). Given this, I construe that 10 and 11 flow from verse 9, especially when “heretic” is properly understood. Regarding this, I’ll quote from Donald Guthrie’s Tyndale Commentary (The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 14; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990], p 230):

The Greek word hairetikos translated a divisive person is to be distinguished in meaning from the English word ‘heretic’ derived from it. It was only in later times that it acquired a more technical meaning of ‘one who holds false doctrine’. Here it refers to one who promotes division by his views.

Now, I stand firm to my belief that this is specifically addressing divisive persons within the Church; but, we can agree to disagree on this one. However, I think you are very wrong in your understanding of the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20.

Cont…

 
Continuing:

RayB, you wrote: You also state that we are "commanded to make disciples." We are, but the first requirement in making a disciple is to have a BELIEVER to work with. One cannot learn how to be a follower of Christ without first believing in Him.

No, the “first requirement” is to evangelize—engage with non-believers where they are. Once/if ‘converted’, we are to “baptize” and “teach”. Craig Blomberg’s New American Commentary provides a decent enough explanation:

The main command of Christ’s commission is “make disciples” (mathēteusate). Too much and too little have often been made of this observation. Too much is made of it when the disciples’ “going” is overly subordinated, so that Jesus’ charge is to proselytize merely where one is…Too little is made of it when all attention is centered on the command to “go,” as in countless appeals for missionary candidates, so that foreign missions are elevated to a higher status of Christian service than other forms of spiritual activity. To “make disciples of all nations” does require many people to leave their homelands, but Jesus’ main focus remains on the task of all believers to duplicate themselves wherever they may be. The verb “make disciples” also commands a kind of evangelism that does not stop after someone makes a profession of faith. The truly subordinate participles in v. 19 explain what making disciples involves: “baptizing” them and “teaching” them obedience to all of Jesus’ commandments. The first of these will be a once-for-all, decisive initiation into Christian community. The second proves a perennially incomplete, life-long task (Matthew, NAC 22; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992], p 431).

If your perspective is one, two, two strikes you’re out in regard to evangelism based on your interpretation of Titus 3, then that’s your prerogative to hold such a view. But don’t impose that on me. However, I’ll state this, I’d come to faith rather late at 39, and it wasn’t as a result of dogmatic individuals such as you; in fact, quite the contrary, as I found this sort of thing off-putting.

My engagement with D had a multi-pronged purpose: challenge his views (which required I first understand them), defend my (our) faith, and evangelize. Not that I need to explain this to you.

At the end of the day, if Constance had voiced her opposition to my continued responses to D, then I would have stopped out of respect for her and her blog. Since the exact opposite was voiced by Constance, as she deemed them relevant for her own blog purposes, I won’t be silenced by you. If you disagree with her decision, why not express it to her?

You may not know that D’s initial reason for coming here was due to a blog post by Constance referencing him years ago. Since then he’s come on and off, and one of his reasons commenting here is an attempt to correct what he perceives as a mischaracterization of his beliefs with respect to the worship of Gaia.

In any case, if you (or the anons) prefer not to read my engagements with D, then no one is forcing you. You can, as Constance has mentioned many times, simply ‘collapse comments’.

 
Anonymous at 1:57 PM,

in English only one question mark or exclamation mark is permissible. Notwithstanding immeasurable ignorance with regards to Latin, your mocking tone in English is punctuated with with yet more ignorance via your poor punctuation skills.

I'd suggest you 'mop it up' yet you'd no doubt inadvertently kick the bucket (which, incidentally, may not be such a bad thing)!
 
Anon 8:26 PM,

You are absolutely correct, of course, regarding punctuation in formal writing. But, I hardly think a blog comment qualifies as formal writing. However, this sort of thing (extra punctuation marks) is common and well-accepted in informal writing.

And, hey, no one is perfect anyway, as evidenced by your error in repeating "with" in your second sentence. Hate it when that happens.
 
This past Christmas I bought a book for my nephew (and myself), a budding writer (he writes some excellent short stories and poetry for a teenager). It’s titled But Can I Start a Sentence with “But”?. It contains short, snappy, and snarky answers to real questions posed to the online version of the Chicago Style Manual. On the back cover is the following Q & A, presumably from a copyeditor:

Q. Oh, English-language gurus, is it ever proper to put a question mark and an exclamation mark at the end of a sentence in formal writing? This author is giving me a fit with some of her overkill emphases, and now there is this sentence that has both marks at the end. My everlasting gratitude for letting me know what I should tell this person.

A. In formal writing, we allow both marks only in the event that the author was being physically assaulted while writing. Otherwise, no.

 
On the one hand, Free Speech has had recent victories, such as this one, as quoted from the NY Times: In Matal v. Tam, the [Supreme Court] justices ruled that the government can’t pick and choose which trademarks it registers based on whether they offend certain people or groups. The case was brought by the Slants [LOVE the name!], an Asian-American dance-rock band that had chosen its name — a familiar slur against people of Asian descent — to defuse its negative power. The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name under a provision in a 70-year-old federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that “disparage” any “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

Bravo!

But, on the other hand, free speech has been consistently under attack by ‘Social Justice Warriors’ (SJWs) on campuses and within society at large using ‘political correctness’ (PC), this PC running amok in a sea of hypocrisy and logical incoherency. Google has recently fired a (white male) employee for writing a ten page memo which detailed some of the problems with their stance on diversity and attempts to bring in more minorities in their STEM jobs, offering a counter opinion (thus exemplifying diversity of opinion) and got fired for violating some of their policies on diversity! In our current socio-political climate one can exhibit diversity of thought, but these MUST conform to current societal stances on issues of diversity—no matter how logically internally inconsistent—or risk being fired. You risk being fired by your company because of its own internal biases, or you risk SJWs contacting your employer insisting they fire you until your employer caves in under the pressure—what company wants outside negative press of how their employing is a “bigot”, “misogynist”, “homophobe”, “Nazi”, etc. no matter how ridiculous the substantial basis for the charge?.

Now the ADL has a hand in effectively shutting down YouTube channels—for those not aware, Google owns YouTube—including my running favorite Black Pigeon Speaks. Check out this short 5 minute video:

#YouTubePurge: Book Burners of the Digital Age

And here’s a short one from Rebel Media:

Faith Goldy: YouTube Can't Stop Us!

 
"[Reverend Matthew] Fox's new paradigm takes God the Father who is centered (unlike Brahman) above the stars, or beyond the universe, and changes Him from being 'our Father' to being our Mother ... and does so, by bringing God and His throne down into the universe and to the earth. By doing so, God becomes a Her whose throne is now on the earth. God changes from being above-the-universe-centered to being creation-centered and earth-centered, as are also Her true believers. The 'Lord’s prayer" (in part) changes to: "Thy Queendom has come; Thy perfect will, will [now] be done on earth.'"

The above quote is from my article located at https://originalblessing.ning.com/profiles/blogs/catholicism-vs-new-age-creation-spiritality-fr-mitch-pacwa-vs

In Hindu theology, Brahman is transcendent in respect to being both beyond the stars/universe/creation and also in the universe/creation. Brahman is in the creation/universe, but not of it. When the universe comes to an end Brahman will still be in the space where the universe is now located. For Hindus, Brahman is located more so in the creation than "above" and beyond it. Hindus are creation-centered.
 
Then why take up space here Dahlheimer?
Looks like space is made for you elsewhere since we live in the land of nowhere in your way of thinking. Why bother? Why do you trifle with nothings going nowhere? Seriously, why do you peddle your papers here? We are beneath you o ex-alted one....

So you see? You are living beneath your high calling!!!!!!!!! (as i very incorrectly express my nothing to say)

If this ascended crap of yours is that good you wouldn't have to work so hard to sell it. The higher your prose the more you seem to be flailing in the mud trying to get takers at this blog. I hope it is paying you well. You must need to repeatedly keep reaffirming it so you can keep buying yourself.

Thanks for another daily laugh :)

 

Regarding Mr. Dahlheimer, Craig said to RayB (in part):

"Mr. Dahlheimer has been speaking out against what he perceives are flaws in Christianity. Perhaps if he sees the logical incongruity in his own theology he may be inclined to rethink it? Perhaps that could serve as a gateway?"

Mr. Dahlheimer said to Craig (in part):

"I think that you are trying to understand my theology, but I believe that because you are caught up in a religious delusion your "logic" does not make any sense! If Christians could just understand what the New Age spiritual philosophy is all about they would be converted to it."

Craig,

Perhaps you might want to consider using another "gateway" for Mr. Dahlheimer. Based on his above statement, he holds to the belief that your "logic" "does not make any sense." He also appears to be "evangelizing" YOU (along with readers here due to the debate forum you have provided) to his "New Age spiritual philosophy."

This is precisely why the Apostle Paul admonished us not to go beyond the "first or second admonition" when dealing with heretics. You do believe Mr. Dahlheimer is a heretic, don't you?

Perhaps you and Mr. Dahlheimer would consider having a private debate by exchanging emails? At least by doing that, you wouldn't be giving him a soap box from which to declare his "New Age spiritual philosophy."


 
RayB,

D's comment was in apparent frustration over my illustration that his own brand of New Age Gnosticism is (even more) logically incoherent (than more 'traditional' Gnosticism). As a result, he resorted to ad hominem instead of directly countering what I said.

D hardly needs my responses to him to provide a 'soapbox'. He's been freely expressing his views both before and after my lengthy engagement.

No, I don't think D is a heretic, by strict definition. Someone who claims adherence to the Christian faith yet deviates from established orthodoxy is a heretic. In the same way, one who claims to adhere to Judaism yet deviates substantially from Jewish orthodoxy is considered a heretic. D has never once claimed to be a Christian in what could be considered even a quasi-orthodox sense. He’s a New Age Gnostic. Or do you believe that any and everyone who doesn’t conform to orthodox Christianity should be called a heretic? If so, I disagree. They are simply non-believers.

---------------------------------------

Anon 7:47 PM,

You wrote: … Jesus didn't argue with the Pharisees. He simply told the truth and then left them to argue with themselves while He moved on leaving them to their error and reaching out to those who really did want to know the truth. That is wise…

That’s no doubt true. But there’s a big difference here. Jesus, a Jew, the Jewish Messiah, was speaking to other Jewish teachers who, though they should have known better, rejected Him as Messiah. They failed to see that the Tanakh (OT) pointed to Him as Messiah. Moreover, they didn’t practice what the preached; they were hypocrites (Matt 23). He knew their hearts: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling” (Matt 23:37, NASB).

 
Webster's 1828 English Dictionary's definition of "heretic:"

HER'ETIC, n

1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among Christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.
2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.

By this definition, Mr. Dahlheimer, one that proclaims a "religion" (New Age), most certainly is a heretic, due to the fact that he proclaims numerous personal beliefs that are in direct conflict with clearly defined Biblical doctrines.

By the way, Webster's 1828 is widely recognized as the most accurate and authoritative source, among dictionaries, for the defining Biblical words.
 

I do not agree with your thinking that there is a difference here, Craig.

The principle of what Jesus' example shows us can cut across all lines, and time frames,in dealing with any person or people group who love their own particular brand of error. Is one thing for someone (who is any of us until the One True God's truth dawns upon our hearts) to be caught up in error, and then perhaps begin to see reason to question it because some understanding is gaining on their heart and mind by way of the Holy Spirit, but is another to continue, too long, a dialogue that only serves to give someone's erroneous bent a platform (like dealing with poor Christine Erikson as another example). Dahlheimer needs no help getting and maintaining his platform so why lend yourself at this point now to continue to be used for his purpose?
You have done wonderfully, Craig, in answering this man's unreasoned and very willful, stupidity. You won the "argument" way back, but his purpose is not to find and know the truth. That is proven way back, too. I think it should suffice by now what you have made clear without further adding to make your point(s) in continuing to respond to him here. Wherever else is at your discretion.

His "understanding" and position is heretical in even attempting to admix the Bible and his New Age/Old Pagan error. Why not leave him to his choice then? Only pearls cast before a swine at this point.
He has proved repeatedly that he is not open to know that the Bible is the only source of all truth, all the time, in need of no mix to "fix" it's narrative.
God only strives so long with men and then He's done. When an instance came to that, Jesus always knew when to walk away. He let the willful blind stay in whatever ditch they have chosen to remain in.

 
Craig 9:05 PM

You are obviously - and rightly - aware that I was merely joking in my comment at 1:57 PM.

Regarding 8:26 PM...

Le trouble de la personnalité histrionique (anciennement hystérique) est défini par l'Association américaine de psychiatrie (AAP) comme un trouble de la personnalité caractérisé par un niveau émotionnel et de besoin d'attention exagéré.


 
Hi,

Hi guys,

You might like to consider what the Bible teaches on the preaching of another Gospel.
I think there is a distinction between someone holding a false belief vs those that purpose to falsely proselytise (attempting to convert (someone) from Christianity to another religion, belief, or opinion).


2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (NIV)

3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

Galatians 1:6-9 (NIV)

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!



2 John 9-11(NIV)

9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.


 
RayB,

The way I read definition 1, it is the same as what I wrote @ 2:08 PM, though I can see how you could construe it more broadly. I think you understand as such:

A person under any religion, but particularly the Christian [person], who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith [of Christianity], or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy [in Christianity]. In strictness, among Christians, a person [of any religious persuasion] who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.

This is how I understand it:

A person under any religion, but particularly the Christian [religion], who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith [of the Christian for the Christian, or of the Jewish faith for the Jew, etc.], or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy [for the religion in question].

Or stated a bit differently, but to the same effect, though probably more clearly making my point by omitting “but particularly the Christian”:

A person under any religion who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith [of a particular religion], or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy [for that particular religion].

I judge that this is the proper way to read it given that the next sentence is part of the same sub-definition for 1:

In strictness, among Christians, a [Christian] person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.

That is, with respect to Christianity, a heretic is one who professes to be Christian yet holds and teaches opinions at variance with Scripture, which is the only rule of faith and practice for Christians. Since the first sentence of the sub-definition was more general (though stating that Christianity is the religion most likely to use the term “heretic”--but particularly the Christian), the second one further defined what the term specifically entailed for the Christian.

I’m not so sure about your claim regarding Webster’s 1828 being an authoritative source for defining Biblical words. The definition here for “heretic” is a modern definition, and it would be anachronistic to impose that on Titus 3:10—the only occurrence of the word in Scripture. Check out Strong’s (“heretic” is #141) or Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (it’s online).

An excellent source for your purposes would by Spiro Zodhiates’ The Complete Word Study New Testament (King James Version edition). I have a copy of this. It has the entire NT tagged with Strong’s numbers, and includes a concordance and dictionary, the latter in numerical order by Strong’s numbering (plus it contains Greek helps). This work defines 141 as schismatic. Thayer’s defines it schismatic, factious. These are good definitions, as the word is actually an adjective in Scripture, which is followed by the Greek word for man (or human). Thus, the NASB renders it a factious man. A schismatic/factious person is one who claims to be part of a particular group (in this case, Christianity) while holding views that disagree in part with the group.

 
The D is duplicitous much as the fruit of the tree and his light bearer that gave it to him.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
The D does not stand for dialog as he is convinced in his belief set much as Craig is his.
The D does not answer or have discourse with you when you point out his error, nor can he aka reprobate in his belief set.

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that ask you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
The D is NOT entreating you of your hope or faith in God, but rather spewing his belief set and enjoys watching you twist yourself in a knot in an attempt to prove him wrong.
The pearls before swine could not be a better analogy.

Craig you waste your wind IMO.

 
Forgive my ChingLish

The D does not answer or have discourse with you when you point out his error. He is reprobate in his belief set and in light of scripture he cannot perceive it.
 
Modern-day scientific discoveries, one after another, continue to pile up indisputable proof that the Bible scriptures that were written thousands of years ago and in which Christians base their doctrines on are deceptive. This is why, today, we are witnessing the Christian God's scripture-prophesied end-times "great falling away" from the Christian religion.

The New Age spiritual philosophy provides a replacement belief system for those who have "fallen away" from false doctrines and are looking for a way to continue following Jesus Christ.

The general approach to God in the West has been to see him as transcendent, above and beyond his creation, only to be worshiped from afar, beyond the stars, or millions of light years away. The approach of the East, on the other hand, is to see God as primarily immanent, or creation-centered, in man and all creation, "closer than hand or foot, closer than the breath." The New Age movement will synthesize these two approaches and usher in the "anti-Christ" New World Order of "peace and security."
 
Thomas Dahlheimer, you wrote: Modern-day scientific discoveries, one after another, continue to pile up indisputable proof that the Bible scriptures that were written thousands of years ago and in which Christians base their doctrines on are deceptive. This is why, today, we are witnessing the Christian God's scripture-prophesied end-times "great falling away" from the Christian religion.

Cognitive dissonance much? So, you think the Bible is anti-science and not to be trusted, but you use a portion of it to ‘prove’ that it is prophetic, thereby ascribing legitimacy to it?! LOL!

 

" but you use a portion of it to ‘prove’ that it is prophetic, thereby ascribing legitimacy to it?! LOL!"

Yes. Stupid isn't it?

Poor Mr. Dahlheimer is blind with a dark jealous heart and mind, blocking his own view to see and know the truth. Error must pay well in his estimation, for this little moment of earthly life, since it brings nothing else with it...
Oh yes, what is fake will fall away..and happening now big time...and only serves to prove what is truly true never ever suffered one moment of loss, outlasting and outshining all else.


 
Wake up people. We are all being played. The Alt-Left and the Alt-Right are run by the same forces. The goal is to 'divide and conquer.'


https://www.intellihub.com/wake-up-people-alt-left-and-alt-right-are-run-by-the-same-forces-the-goal-is-divide-and-conquer/

 
All who criticized my engagement with D,

I’ve looked at the various Scriptures marshalled out in defense of your stance, and, IMO, I find them wanting (I’m not inviting him into my home, we’re hardly “yoked” together, etc.). Initially, I thought Matthew 7:6 would be viable, but after some research, I’ve changed my mind. Specifically, it was Rudolf Schnackenburg’s The Gospel of Matthew (transl. by Robert R. Barr [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002], p 75) that persuaded me. In it, he observed how the Didache (from Greek meaning “teaching”, ca. 96AD) referenced this verse to support excluding the unbaptized from the Eucharist/communion. Of this verse he writes:

Here is a puzzling pair of propositions (the dogs and the swine), all the more so in view of the connected warning (lest one be trampled, then mauled). Obscure as the original sense is, in the Matthean context the passage may have been a call to the defense of their sacred goods. Does it have to do with their liturgy, after the fashion of the subsequent reference to prayer (7:11)?...In the Old Testament, “what is holy,” “that which is holy,” is meat offered in sacrifice…and “dogs” (like swine) becomes in Judaism a metaphor for Gentiles…Stated in climactic progression, the meaning is that which is most precious…is not to be surrendered to the scornful…That could have destroyed the community as a sacred fellowship…Interpretations supposing concrete references, be these “the holy” (as referring to wisdom utterances, the gospel, the Eucharist) or of “dogs” and “swine” (villains, Gentiles, apostates), are scarcely sound ones.

 
More on free speech.

What really happened at Charlottesville? From what I understand the ‘Unite the Right’ side had permits to demonstrate (peacefully assemble) at the Robert E. Lee park. An organizer spoke with Charlottesville police to secure the event. Then the Commonwealth of Virginia changed their minds, telling them they could instead assemble at another park. With the help of the ACLU a federal judge declared that the permit was lawful. However, Virginia still said they could not have their event there.

With permit secured by the federal judge, they went anyway. On Saturday, State Police in riot gear cut the part in half, with three sides of the remaining area contained by their perimeter. This effectively blocked a number of planned attendees, making the turnout much smaller.

On the ‘open’ side came the Antifa (a communist organization) and Black Lives Matter. Reportedly, they hurled balloons full of urine and feces at the Unite the Right side. I saw footage of BLM members carrying bats (billy clubs) during the course of the event. I can’t say for sure who started the skirmishes, but below are a number of videos claiming the violence all started from the left.

At some point early on Saturday, police (not sure if what was Charlottesville or State police) told that to disburse because the Commonwealth deemed it “an unlawful assembly”. On what grounds, I wonder? The Antifa/BLM side did not have a permit for their counter protest, and there was no police in between the two factions, as is usual for demonstrations of this sort. Some on the United the Right, including reporters asked if the police would open a portion of the barricades so that the demonstrators would not have to exit through the agitated Antifa/BLM side. The officers refused.

The MSM universally claimed it was the ‘right’ who started and perpetrated the violence, including, initially, Fox News. However, Tucker Carlson got it mostly right. (I don’t agree with the overall message of the YouTuber who recorded Carlso, judging by his t-shirts for sale.):

"We Should Have Seen This Coming" Tucker Carlson Has A Clear Message

Evidence for some of what I wrote above on the event is in the following videos:

Organizer Of Charlottesville Rally Jason Kessler Speaks On The Aftermath | Virginia Protests

Not a fan of Alex Jones, but I like Millie Weaver:

BREAKING: MILLIE UPDATES from Race Riots In Virginia! - Alex Jones Infowars

Richard Spencer (white nationalist) pleads with riot police in Charlottesville

Cont:


 
Continuing:

I think this sets a dangerous precedence for ‘free speech’. I may disagree with (some of) those protesters, but I firmly believe they had a right to assemble. What happened there with Antifa/BLM is the same thing that has been recurring across America: they are given mostly a free pass to do whatever they want, with little to no arrests made.

You may need to put on your tin foil hat for this next part. Who actually drove the vehicle into the crowd? Some have asserted out that the driver doesn’t look like the man arrested. I dunno. However, I noticed right away that when the individual put the car in reverse and sped away he did so expertly, in a straight line. I challenge anyone to do that. Moreover, apparently the air bag did not deploy, and the front end looked as if it had been reinforced, judging by the relative damage the impact had on the car it hit.

Who Was Driving the Vehicle at Charlottesville?

Is the one arrested the same guy in the photo of smashed car (scroll down)?:

https://twitter.com/rancolaw/status/896485021883781120

Though I disagree with parts of this, LA Werewolf (Mexican-American Libertarian) brings an interesting perspective on things:

Charlottesville VA, Alt Right, Cuckservatives, Communism vs Fascism, Unpopular Analysis

I’ve been reading scores of YouTube comments on videos over the past few months. I know there are trolls—those who may not even ascribe to the view they espouse commenting just to get a rise out of others—but there are an alarming amount of neo-Nazi advocates/sympathizers commenting. This is a direct reaction to being told in school that whites are the problem in the world, especially males. Moreover, look up “white privilege” and “male privilege” to get an idea. This is further entrenching those on the Antifa/BLM side.

Some have proclaimed that a civil war has started. I’m concerned.

On another note, the feminist backlash against Cassie Jaye’s documentary (which implicitly illustrates her gradually becoming an anti-feminist) on men’s rights over against the ills caused by feminism (to include a spike in male suicide rates due to unfair custody arrangements—such as not being able to see kids based on false domestic violence/rape charges—overly burdensome financial support, etc.), was deemed ‘unacceptable’ by both feminists AND media, effectively blocking it from being shown at movie houses across the West. Once again, stifling free speech.

 
Anon 10:10 PM,

Thanks for the link. I’d read about this in a YouTube comment, and I’m undecided, specifically:

As evidence of all this, note that Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Charlottesville event, actually worked for Obama and the Occupy movement just a few months ago. This man is a professional activist and social engineer who whips up big events on the world’s stage in order to achieve highly visible outcomes that can be seized by the mainstream media to condemn Trump supporters by labeling them all racists and “KKK.”

Much of the organized Left is funded either directly or indirectly by George Soros, the same radical left-wing operator who undercut freedom and liberty across numerous European countries.


Could Kessler have changed sides ideologically because he’s simply changed his mind after the backlash of the election or because he’s a free speech activist? I dunno. The A&E reference in that article may have nothing to do with Charlottesville.

But this part I definitely agree with:

Meanwhile, the media is using the hatred and division to try to dethrone President Trump, and Antifa is using the chaos to push for its goal to terrorize America while overthrowing the government and installing communism.

Antifa get a free pass in the media. They claim to be “anti-fascists” all the while using tactics that fascists use. And they label anyone who supports Trump, no matter how many caveats are stated, and Trump himself as “Nazis”. Anyone to the right of Antifa is called “alt-right” > “fascist” > “Nazi”. Schools have drilled into students that Nazism was bad (it was), while totally ignoring the evils of communism. So, violence against “Nazis” is deemed acceptable. Just look up “punch a Nazi”.

The left is the one who starts the violence, but the media only (largely) reports any violence by the right—even if it was in self-defense. Thankfully, due to the diligence of 4Chan or /pol/ some have finally gotten arrested, such as BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) leader Yvette Felarca, Eric Canton (bike lock attacker), and Ishmael Camru. See this video by LA Werewolf (Mexican-American Libertarian living in CA); I largely agree with him though I take exception a bit with his delivery. He got one thing wrong in the video: the raising of the Antifa flag (again, which promotes Communism) was in Minneapolis, not in Charlottesville:

Trump on Alt Left Charlotteville and The Marxist Subverted Society

The New Jersey Homeland Security has officially declared Antifa a terrorist organization. Hopefully, other states will follow.

 
Anon 5:37 PM,

Speaking of histrionique, the MSM media’s reaction to Trump’s statements regarding Charlottesville are just too much! I’m not a fan of Mark Dice’s delivery (I do like his “Liberalism: Find a Cure” t-shirt idea, though), but the guy has over a 1 million subscribers on YouTube (more than Fox News), and he shows some media and talk show host’s reactions:

CNN Host Cries Over Trump Blaming "Both Sides"

 
Craig 11:32,

Les politiques histrioniques!

Van "crocodile tears" Jones is a self professed communist.

One of his more stalwart admirers is none other than the self-professed "witch" who calls herself "Starhawk."

http://starhawk.org/stand-with-van-jones/
http://starhawk.org/119/

Jones was once Obama's "green jobs czar" but wound up resigning amid controversy about his past comments and associations - including his past affiliation with the 9/11 conspiracy “truthers.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/09/van-jones-resigns-amid-controversy-026797





 
I think we are starting to experience our own version of Mao's "Cultural Revolution", where opposition to the "established truth" and to Chairman Mao's grand communist vision of the future of China was met with prison, or re-education camps, or at the very least being shunned by your neighbors and friends who had drunk the Red Koolaid (communist propaganda).

We are having to be more and more selective about not only what we say, but who we say it to, and where.

And you can be sure that the Right has been infiltrated by the Left. It is standard practice to control the opposition, to make it ineffective. The best way to control the opposition is to infiltrate - to pretend to be who you are not. That's why I think it plausible that Kessler is one of those infiltrators. He did not change ideologies overnight, or at all - he only acts as though he did. We Americans find it hard to believe someone would do that, because we underestimate our enemies almost every time.


 
The range term goal and agenda behind Charlottesville (with suspicious that both sides were financed by George Soros) is to isolate and attempt to remove President Trump from office!!!
 
Sorry, that should read...

The long range goal and agenda behind Charlottesville (with suspicion that both sides were financed by George Soros) is to isolate and attempt to remove President Trump from office!!!
 

In this short video, Stefan Molyneux brilliantly describes the "Alt-Left Among Us," along with sobering statistics that show how wide and deep the radical Left has infiltrated virtually every aspect of society.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fntc6ixzJw8
 

Deep State Tightening Their Vice On President Trump And The Patriot Movement

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2017/08/deep-state-tightening-the-vice-on-trump-patriot-movement-under-massive-assault-2932633.html
 
I think the best thing that came out of this past election cycle is the 'fake news' claim. Regardless of who started it or why, it is making people think and be more skeptical of the media and political minions and their handlers.
 
I’m finding some more, purportedly, about the “Unite the Right”. If true, they should have called themselves “United the White”…supremacists. In the following is a video showing various chats with Nazi, neo-Nazi and racist images. Disgusting. Jason Kessler has one chat on it saying “Heimbach was okay when I talked to him earlier today”. Don’t know yet who Heimbach is, though apparently one who attended Charlottesville.

LEAKED: Chats of #UniteTheRight Charlottesville Organizers Exposed on Discord App

The following shows footage of the tiki-lit vigil held on Friday the 12th:

White Supremacist Mob Carrying Torches Attacks Anti-Racist Protesters in Charlottesville

I did just a little checking into Identity Evropa, and they appear to cross the line into white supremacy, though I want to withhold judgment. I’ve never been quite comfortable with the name of the self-described “white nationalists”, with “white” as the qualifier, which, to me, implies separatism at the least. Richard Spencer, a prominent speaker at UTR event (and other like events), is president of the National Policy Institute, a group that appears to want to bring back racial segregation, among other things.

Nonetheless, if this group had a permit to peacefully assemble—and it appears they did—then they should have been able to peacefully assemble. And the police should have been able to do their jobs—not given ‘stand down’ orders.

Antifa has a Facebook page called It’s Going Down. Does that not sound confrontational? It has comments/posts talking about the event. There are pro and con comments. It’s worth a glance to get an idea.

Here’s another Anifa FB page: Hudson Valley Antifascist Network. It also speaks of Charlottesville.

 
Charlottesville: Here is what really happened!!!

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=81054
 
I've never been a fan of the Van. I'd not known that Starhawk was an admirer. I'll never forget his statement after Trump's election victory: "It was a whitelash against a black president, in part. And that’s part of where the pain comes."

More histrionics and fake victimization. Not to mention racist. Oh wait, I forgot: according to what the liberal schools teach, only whites can be racist. Blacks cannot.

Can you imagine if a white person called Obama's election win a "blacklash"?!
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]