Hollywood

Why the name “Hollywood?”

In ancient England, the Druids valued a variant of the Holly tree above all trees since that tree retained life throughout the year. They marked that value by crafting their wands made out of the Holly tree.

Keep in mind that the wand has been used since antiquity as a tool to direct the will of the user. Whether in the form of the wand or in other forms such as the staff or scepter of state.

You can see this symbology readily if you only look for it. Whether the fairy godmother in Disney with her magic wand or whether Gandalf the Grey with his staff or the whole Harry Potter world. In many University graduations the wand, it present by way of the Academic Mace carried at the front of the procession during graduation ceremonies.  Some hold that the ancient medical caduceus with two serpents on a staff is playing with the theme of the wand of power and authority. When the next Royal is installed in England you will see that at some point during the ceremony they will be entrusted with a royal scepter. This is another spin-off of the wand motif. Even the Crozier as wielded by a Roman Catholic Bishop may have come into the Church via a syncretism with wand history.

So, the wand motif plays heavily in the naming of the film industry with the name “Hollywood.” Historically speaking many of those who began the nascent film industry were already familiar with the Jewish Kabbalah and they then took the name of the tree known for its talismanic qualities combined it with what the wand is made of and used it as the name of the industry that would bewitch the West.

Keep in mind the next time you watch a Hollywood film that the wand for which it was named has been used as a metaphysical meditation tool to represent the extension and direction of the user’s will (to channel energy) toward the desired result of the outcome of a situation.

Hollywood via the film is practicing magic and you are the one upon whom the magic is being practiced. The magic is ubiquitous but because it is the water we swim in we don’t see it. Think about it though. Hollywood has used its magic to teach us how to think, how to respond, how to emote and how to dress. Hollywood has used its magic to teach us what is beautiful, what is successful, and what is desirable.

As a passive viewer being bewitched by the magic, you are watching the story unfold on the silver screen. You become convinced that the actions, emotions, language, decisions, and fashion of the actors and actresses are reflections of your actions when in point of fact these actions, emotions, language usage, and fashion now owned by the viewer are part of the working of the magic upon the viewer. The film, by way of magic, causes you to act, think, emote, speak, and dress just as you viewed on the screen.

This is not to say that all films are evil. It is to say that if one is epistemologically self-conscious one will be aware that there is the intent of magic connected with what is produced in Hollywood.

The Logic Behind “The New Normal”

 

Modern man long ago claimed that “God is Dead.” In the killing of God, we are yet coming to terms with some of the consequences. Take the matter of evil for example. With the existence of a personal God who is the definer of all reality evil has an objective definition. This is to say that it’s definition is outside of us and is not subjective and person variable. Evil is real and identifiable by God’s standards. However, having rid ourselves of God, if we are to talk about ‘evil’ at all (and some people clearly do not want to talk about it at all) then we must conclude that ‘evil’ is defined subjectively by man. Evil then is reduced to that which man does not like and finds repulsive and inconvenient to him. Further, because there is no super-mundane God to define evil and because there is no objective character to ‘evil,’ evil is reduced to that which occurs by the random evolutionary process of time + chance + circumstance as defined by each individual who labels ‘evil’ as ‘evil.’ Finally, we would have to say that as ‘evil’ is defined subjectively there can be no universal agreement as to what constitutes ‘evil.’ As such one man’s ‘evil’ most certainly be another man’s ‘good.’

As ‘evil’ is defined as only having subjective existence and reality the cure for evil for modern man is not conquering or overcoming evil.  After all, one does not conquer or overcome something that has no reality. No, the cure for evil for the modern man is reconciling himself or adjusting himself to what it is he deems ‘evil.’ In short, if modern man wants to triumph over evil then he must redefine good down in order to accommodate for evil. Modern man’s problem is not his inability to conquer evil. Modern man’s problem is that he has not reconciled himself to his circumstances. He needs to find a new normal that will serve the purpose of redefining evil so that evil is not evil after all.

This kind of mindset is seen in spades in the current exigencies of our lives as modern Western men.  A couple of days ago in London, yet another Van purposely careened into yet another London crowd yet again leaving death under its axels. Among the leaders in the West, there is no call for ridding ourselves of the evil of the stone age culture that has been encouraged unto immavasion in the West. What we get instead either explicitly or implicitly is the idea that the inhabitants of the West must adjust to the Islamification of the West. It is suggested that this kind of routine mayhem is the new normal. The onus is upon us to understand our co-religionist newcomer neighbors.

Lying underneath all of this is the idol of false “knowledge.” Increasingly the idea is postulated that if we just understood Islam and just knew that Islam was a religion of peace and if we just got to “know” our Muslim neighbors that we could more easily reconcile and adjust ourselves to the new normal. This is the concrete example of what I spoke about earlier concerning how the West is being pushed to integrate good downward into the void of evil in order to arrive at new definitions of both evil and good. Knowledge, empathy, and sympathy will be our tools for integration downward into the void and as we integrated downward into the void we will discover that what we once thought was evil was not really evil after all but was instead our failure to adjust to, reconcile with, and embrace the new norms. Evil doesn’t exist. What exists is our inability to properly relate, adjust and reconcile.

If there is any evil in the former Western lands it is the evil of the Christian White man in refusing to give up his “Christian White privilege.” The problem you see is not the evil of Islam or the evil of the Marxist work of the transvaluation of all values, or the evil of critical race theory which has brought us to this pass. No, the evil lies in the inability and unwillingness of the White Western Christian man to join the anti-Christ revolution and so voluntarily disintegrate downward into the void. White Western Christian man is resisting adjusting, he is resisting reconciling himself to the new world order, he is resisting the need to relate to the new normal. The White Western Christian man who will not adjust is the worse sociopath of all. He is the anti-Revolutionary and he must be eliminated.

The idea of a Devil who is appointed to the end of evil has been eclipsed. The Devil and evil do not exist.  The Devil is a child’s truth. The Devil is what men thought of when they were still not enlightened.  When the Christian Western White man learns to embrace the new normal what is thought of as the Devil and as evil will disappear. So, one hears the call to “give in,” and to compromise. There is no willingness to fight because evil has no objective meaning. Fighting is bad … adjusting is good. “We will overcome” has been replaced by “We will be assimilated.”

On top of everything else that has been said it needs to be observed that in coming to this place what has also been eclipsed is the Biblical concept of the individual. If the problem is that man is not properly adjusting or relating or reconciling himself to the new state of affairs then underneath of all that is the individual is not rightly related to the mob, for it is the mob mentality that one must adjust to and be reconciled with. If there is no God, and no evil with the consequent implication that man in his corporate expression is the new god and refusal to integrate downward into the void with the mob is the new evil then man qua man has disappeared into the hive and the anthill.

Finally, an unwillingness to disintegrated downward into the void means a loss of salvation for salvation in this humanist paradigm lies in the constant revolutionary integration downward into the void. Those who refuse to adjust are eternally damned.

Keep all this in mind when you hear ministers suggesting that the God of luv requires this kind of thing of good disciples of Christ. Such ministers are ministers of Satan and knowingly or unknowingly are preparing your souls to be received by their Father the devil.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee … Christianity Means Nationalism

Sixthly, in looking at the Christian view of nationality, it was seen: that the Triune God ordained all the various (mineral, plant, and animal) kingdoms of His universe and that He alone rules the nations of men; that man’s obedience to the “dominion charter” would ultimately have led to the development of the various nations to the glory of God, even irrespective of the fall; that nationality is a historically grounded and plastically qualified societal relationship proceeding sphere sovereignty and directly from God; that sin has marred national development and international relationships; that the supranational tower of Babel (cI. the aim of communist eschatology!) was destroyed by God because contrary to His purposes as set out in the “dominion charter”; that the existence of the various nationalities and languages was thus caused by God and is pleasing to Him; that national isolation and supranational miscegenation are both equally wrong, for God would have all nations worship Him and love one another as nations; that Christ enjoined both love of one’s own nation and of other nations but particularly the Christianization of all the nations (in His Great Commission); that the events of the first New Testament day of Pentecost, while promoting good international relationships, also reinforced and sanctified nationality as such and in no way sought to transcend it; and that New Testament Christians maintained their nationality and taught that others should do the same,142 while yet working for improved national and international relationships as part of and as a result of their obedience to Christ’s mandate to evangelize all the nations, until all nations have become Christianized and, even after the final judgment, maintain their nationality and live in perfect harmony with the other nations in the new Jerusalem forever with all nations under the Triune God!

So the Christian doctrine of nationality is diametrically opposed to that of Marxism. Nations are a necessary product of man’s creation, not his alienation; Christ’s atonement principally heals the nations;143 and eschatologically the nations will preserve their nationality unto all eternity, and not lose it in a colorless communist utopia.

“God that made the world and all things therein, . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us . . but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17.24-30).

“The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved. . – He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth. . . Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen [- the nations], I will be exalted in the earth” (Ps. 46:6-10).

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
Communist Eschatology — pg. 773 – 774

Dr. Fancis Nigel Lee’s Apologetic For Biblical Nationalism

Of course, there is to be contact between the nations, but not supranational miscegenation or slow genocide. National seclusion is wrong, but even a supranational ecumenical movement can be guilty of seclusion! For as Dooyeweerd remarks:

“The history of the building of the tower of Babel, viewed in the light of the cultural commandment of Genesis 1, shows that seclusion and isolation in cultural development is contrary to the Divine ordinance. Cultural expansion, the spread of humanity over the surface of the earth in the differentiation of the cultural groups, and the cultural contact between these groups, have been set as a task to mankind.”114

And again: “In the removal of the rigid walls of isolation, historical development moves in the line of cultural integration. The latter has its counterpart in the process of an increasing differentiation. This process of cultural integration and differentiation should be sharply distinguished from the leveling tendencies which in our days threaten to penetrate the so-called under-developed cultures with secularized factors of Western civilization.”115

In spite of a slight amount of marginal intermixing and still less of intermarriage with other stocks, God preserved the Israelitic nation and its culture (and land and language) up to the advent of Christ.116 Neither did Christ destroy nationality but sought to preserve it and to cleanse it from sin and to perfect it. And this involved at least two things: His mandate to improve international relations, but also to sanctify national life to His glory. Christ insisted on His followers improving international relations. And this they were to do by loving their neighbors as themselves,117 yes, by loving even their hostile Samaritan neighbors.11”

Also, they were to pray for their enemies,119 even for their Roman conquerors,120 and, after Christ’s death and ascension, to go into all the world and teach all the nations, as commanded in Christ’s Great Commission.121 Yet they were also to sanctify national life and to promote specifically the national welfare. Jesus Himself clearly taught the necessity of the Israelitic believers’ ministering first to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,”122 and that it was not meet to take the Israelitic “children’s bread and cast it” to other nations.123 Nor should Samaritans be encouraged to inundate the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem, but rather worship God in their own temple in their own land, for “God is Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit,”124 that is, in one and the same spirit and not necessarily in one and the same international or supranational geographical locality. And, having assured His followers that nations would still be in existence on the future Day of Judgment,125 and that many would then come from the east and west into the kingdom of heaven,12~ He told His followers to go into all the world, and disciple all the nations121 (as nations!), beginning amongst their own nation in
Jerusalem, but going forth thence even into the hostile territory of “Samaria, and into the uttermost parts of the earth.”127

Shortly after that, the risen Christ poured out His Spirit on the day of Pentecost, causing the disciples to speak of the wonderful works of God in every then known language for the benefit of those Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamians, Cappadocians, Pontians, Asians, Phrygians, Pamphylians, Egyptians, Libyans, Cyrenians, Romans, Cretans, Arabians, etc., who were then in Jerusalem for the feast. Far from suggesting the future creation of a one-world nation with a one-world language, this important event certainly suggests the sanctification of the then existing nationalities to the service of God, inasmuch as “devout men, out of every nation under heaven” there heard the Gospel “every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born.”128

Nor did the Christians later lose their nationality. Even amongst the early Israelitic Christians, the Greek-speaking Israelites maintained their group consciousness vis-a-vis the Hebrew-speaking Israelites.129 Paul became a Roman to the Romans solely so that he might save some,130 but in spite of this he still remained an Israelite,131 spoke always to the Jews
first and then to the Greeks,132 and loved his people so much that he was prepared to sacrifice himself in their stead, as it were.l33 At the same time. he emphasized that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew nor barbarian nor Scythian,134 and that as the nations of the world were progressively more and more won for Christ,135 and as Christians of each nation prayed for their kings and those in authority so that Christian men may lead a quiet and peaceable life and so that all men may be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth,136” national and international relations would improve, in spite of all temporary setbacks, as the Gospel runs its course through the world of nations.137

The Cretians may be liars, evil beasts, slow bellies; the Corinthians may be factious and passionate; the Galatians may be foolish; the Thessalonians lazy; and the Israelites blinded;138 but the day is coming when Christ shall be all in all.139

For “in the last days it shall come to pass that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths; for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”140 And in the new Jerusalem on the new earth, “the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. . . – And they shall bring~thc glory and honor of the nations into it.”141

Dr. Fancis Nigel Lee
Communist Eschatology — pg. 770-772

Rev. Mathis, Rev. Allberry, & Rev. McAtee Discussing Sodomy

“I am same-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me, and that has become good news.”

“Rev.” Sam Alberry
Editor — The Gospel Coalition

“11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”  Ephesians 5

Over here,

Does The Gospel Coalition Believe in the Heinousness of Homosexuality?

Rev. Shawn Mathis dissects precisely the problem with Rev. Allberry’s statements and legitimately asks why the organization “The Gospel Coalition” is supporting this kind of material.

Per the quote above and per the refusal of anybody at “The Gospel Coalition” to put the brakes on this mindset clearly, this kind of mindset has become acceptable in the conservative Reformed church. Some might even say that such a position is admirable if only because it comes across so sensitive. But change this just a wee bit and ask yourself if it should be applauded and ask yourself why it is being applauded.

“I am heifer-sex attracted and have been my entire life. By that, I mean that I have sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to cows. I choose to describe myself this way because sexuality is not a matter of identity for me, and that has become good news.”

Rev. Allberry is trying to tell us that while same-sex attraction can be equal to romantic and deep emotional attraction to the same sex, same-sex attraction can not be equal to sin. This is like saying that having attraction to someone else’s wife is ok because, after all, the sexual attraction is characterized as a deep emotional attraction.

Why is Rev. Allberry talking about to whom he is attracted if sexual identity isn’t important to him? It is obviously important for him to identify who he is, in relation to his attractions. Why does he, as a Christian, find it acceptable to publish this?

You see, it is simply because sodomy has become mainstreamed and even dare we say “glamorous” so as to become acceptable in our thinking that such a quote as Rev. Allberry’s above fails to raise a firestorm of protest. Can anybody imagine John Calvin or Martin Luther or John Knox or Charles Spurgeon or Thomas Chalmers or C. F. W. Walther sitting on “The Gospel Coalition” board and not raising a hue and cry over this?

Rev. Allberry’s quote reveals the Gnosticism that much of the contemporary visible Church is riddled with. That there is a creeping Gnosticism here is seen also in this quote from Rev. Allberry,

“Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class, race, or nationality.”

The thing is, is that our class, race, and nationality, as well as our sexual affections, do define who we are as embodied beings.

In Platonic language Rev. Allberry is trying to tell us that even though he has the accidents of sodomy (sexual, romantic and deep emotional attractions to people of the same sex) those accidents don’t affect the essence of his identity. And yet here he is, in the context of denying this identity, admitting that he has all the markers that make up an identity. It’s like saying … “Milk is white but whiteness isn’t an accident of Milk.” One might observe that dealing with your sin tendencies by saying they aren’t a part of who you are is not a good, or successful, coping mechanism.

Now, of course, all error comes with those willing to make a ready-made defense and we find one Mr. Isaac Arthur defending Rev. Allberry by attacking Rev. Mathis and his article linked above. Mr. Arthur writes,

“Articles like this sacrifice understanding in the name of “discernment” and risk literally shutting the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces.

As long as the mere suggestion that a person can be same-sex attracted and yet live a faithful Christian life causes people to doubt one’s commitment to Scripture, as long as the same-sex attracted are “them” vs. “us,” as long as the Church remains ambivalent towards the same-sex attracted (other than to castigate and label), as long as partnering with the same-sex attracted is a liability, I guarantee you the church will continue to lose ground and do untold damage to countless souls — souls bought with the very blood of Jesus. I don’t know Allberry well, and can’t vouch for everything he may have said or written, but I wonder: In trying so hard to not become desensitized to sin, are we becoming desensitized to the Gospel?”

This kind of “defense is pretty standard fare on this matter and as such, I take a few minutes to unwind this pottage of confusion.

1.) Since the Gospel is the cure to sin how is it possible that a sensitivity to sin will work in us a de-sensitivity to the Gospel?

2.) Since understanding is part and parcel of discernment how can understanding be sacrificed in the name of discernment since they each imply the other? Of course, Mr. Arthur’s point is that Rev. Mathis has neither a true understanding nor a genuine discernment. This is just a fancy way for Mr. Arthur to say, “Nuh Uh.”

3.) No one denied that a person attracted to the same sex or to cows or to children can’t yet live a faithful Christian life. What has been denied is that the impulse for the same sex or for children or for cows is normative. What is being denied is that said impulse should be suggested as being normative.

4.) The Church (Rev. Shawn Mathis in this case) is being anything but ambivalent towards same-sex attraction. It is precisely because Rev. Mathis loves the sinner that he is not letting Rev. Allberry’s irrationality pass un-noticed.

5.) For 20 centuries the Church has not lost any ground in its full-throated opposition to sodomy in all of its expressions from the sodomite desire to the sodomite following through on the desire.  It is just an inaccurate statement that the Church is going to lose ground by opposing all expressions that would make sodomy normative.

6.) Responses like this from Mr. Arthur only serves to literally shut the gates of the Kingdom of heaven in people’s face.

The crux of Rev. Allberry’s article is the question, “Has our theology morphed to blend in with our pagan environment?” Tragically, for the majority of self-described Christians, if they possess a scrap of personal insight, the only honest answer is, “Yes, absolutely.”