Driscoll Disciplines Delinquent Dads

I read the blog on a webzine called Boundless.org. They posted this on Mark Driscoll on 1 Timothy 5:8, But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Driscoll says that if a man in his church doesn't provide for his family, that is, forsakes his role as the bread winner and is a stay at home Dad instead while his wife works full time, he's up for church discipline!

I gotta disagree with him there. I think it's taking 1 Timothy 5:8 out of context. Why is being the stay at home Dad worthy of calling a man worse than an unbeliever?? I think Discoll's taken it a bit too far. The reason why a man should provide for his family is explained in the verses before that:

3Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame.

It is so that people are not led into sin by his actions and failure to provide for them. Let's say the wife is more able to find a better job than her husband and so they agree that she will work instead of him because it's better at that time, then they are still providing for the family and they can still take care of widows in the family. The wife is meant to be the helper to the husband and that doesn't necessarily mean that she stays at home. In this case, it means that she's helping by working instead of him because she is more able and it is better financially.

If a man's actions are causing people to sin, no matter what his actions are - staying at home, working, going to the pub, whatever! Then he ought not do it. The reason why a man should provide for his family is so that those family members in need (in this case, widows) are not destitute and turn to prostitution. That is the reasoning. It isn't right to take this verse away from the others and apply it as a blanket rule over all family units and say that it's a matter of church discipline.

That's dumb. Taking verses out of context = bad. Sinning and causing others to sin = bad. Burdening people with more laws that are superfluous = bad, especially when it is in NO WAY a salvation issue. *sigh*

ANE: Peace of Self

Chapter 2: The Peace of God

The peace of God that Tolle talks about goes something along the lines of this:

You realise your true identity as consciousness itself, rather than what consciousness had identified with. That's the peace of God. The ultimate truth of who you are is not I am this or I am that, but I Am.

What arrogance and conciet! The peace of God that Paul is talking about is that which comes by trusting in God. The trust that is shown when we entrust Him with the things that we are anxious about, because He is capable of acting upon our prayers and does so often. Though more often than not, in ways we cannot fathom.

6Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. - Philippians 4

Ethnicity, Race and Aboriginal Education

I'm doing a Education for Social Justice unit and this random thought just came to me. My blog is a place to blog such random thoughts.

Maybe I resented the Aboriginal education in Primary school because I felt that I had to learn all about this culture that I had no part in, without learning about my own culture and ethnicity. And although I'm white, there's more to me than that. My grandparents were Scottish, Ukrainian and German. There's rich heritage in me that I never learnt, instead, I had to learn all about how the white people were responsible for Aborginal oppression and then I had to celebrate this culture that I was guilty of oppressing. Furthermore, these poor oppressed Aboriginal people were guilty of being social menaces. They wanted to beat me up after school, they broke into my house and stole my things, they would hang around in the park all drunk and leave litter in the bush when I was told again and again to pick it up. They wanted their own land but wouldn't even have taken care of it if they got it. Why did I have to learn about them? (from the perspective of me as a primary school student)

I'm fine learning about it now and I get it a lot more, but as a primary school kid and through out Australian history lessons in high school, I always resented learning about it. I didn't want to know.

So that's my thought. I don't know if it's accurate, but that's my thought. My readings are all toting the importance of integrating the varying abilities and cultures of myriad minority ethnic groups. But I only just realised that all my education on my own ethnicity has been self-motivated and in my own time now that I'm an adult: unlike those of minority groups that are embraced and taken the place of the majority of cultural education.

How can we draw a balance in this? How can I, as an educator, be inclusive of all ethnicities in my curriculm?

An Open Letter to Godly Gals

So my time at Godly Gals is drawing to a close and the open letter that I wrote is here for those interested in reading it.

ANE: Poor in Ownwership

Chapter 2: The Illusion of Ownership

"Blessed are the poor in spirit," Jesus said," for theirs will be the kingdom of heaven." What does "poor in spirit" mean? No inner baggage, no identifications. Not with things, nor with any mental concepts that have a sense of self in them. And what is the "kingdom of heaven"? The simple but profound joy of Being that is there when you let go of identifications and so become "poor in spirit."

This is a complete reversal of what Jesus is actually saying. What does poor in spirit mean? If I say to you, "gee, you look like you're poor in spirit" what would I mean? I have always understood poor in spirit to mean someone who has inner baggage, who is struggling and feeling lowly.

The other beatitudes are for the mourning, meek, hungry, thirsty, merciful, pure in heart, peacemakers and those persecuted for righteousness' sake. These beatitudes cannot be paraphased as "blessed are those who have got it right, because they're terrific and don't need any further help." But this is how Tolle's first beatitude can be paraphrased! Jesus' beautitudes go more along the lines of "blessed are those who are suffering because of me, because in me they will find peace and justice."

This is a prime example of how Tolle regularly takes one verse and distorts it to fit his purpose, without looking at the context. But then, he has such a low opinion of it, given it's written by men who distorted the "truth" as they wrote. Given he places no authority in the Bible, why does he even quote it?

ANE: Giving Stuff is Selfish/less

Chapter 2: The Lost Ring

Up to this point, Tolle has been fleshing out the harm of materialism. To summarise, people get attached to their things and it becomes wrapped up in their identity and they don't realise that their true self is that meta-self-connected state of being that comes from being enlightened. This one woman that Tolle met regularly with lost a ring that held great sentimental value one day and Tolle helped her to deal with the possible lose of it. She had made the ring part of her identity and in separating herself from it, she could feel her "I Am-ness."

With that in mind, she then says,

"Now I understand something Jesus said that never made much sense to me before: 'If someone takes your shirt, let him have your coat as well.'"
"That's right," I said. "It doesn't mean you should never lock your door. All it means is that sometimes letting things go is an act of far greater power than defending or hanging on."

I think she's referring to Matthew 5:40. However, she must not have read any further because it goes on to say

"you have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

Right there we are given a reason for parting with our possessions. Jesus himself tells us that it is because we are to love our enemies and by doing so, we are proving to the world our relationship with the Father. It does not have anything much to do with discovering our I Am-ness, and our connectedness with everything else. Unless you believe that by being in that state of "Being," we are in tapped into the divine, which is what Jesus meant when he said "sons of your Father in heaven."

See, I thought Jesus meant being in a father-son/daughter relationship with the creator God, a powerful and mighty, yet personal being that is revealed in the very person of Jesus - not being connected with everything else around us.

It seems to me that much of the Bible is selfless. Give your enemy your tunic and cloak when he demands it because you love him. But this seems to be promoting an almost selfish way of giving. Give your enemy your tunic and cloak because by not being attached to your possessions, you're closer to becoming enlightened. Can you see how the focus is on yourself, rather than for the good of your enemy?

Where Have I Been?

It's been a while since I made a ANE post. I've been in exams, then prac, then a beach mission, then a Christian camp, now I'm half way through my last week of "holidays" before uni starts on the 4th. Since I've been through the main introductory chapter and it's taken me so damn long, I'm just going to look at the bits that make claims about Christianity and Jesus, instead of claims in general, :D.

So this is just letting you friendly readers know what's going on, why I haven't updated. I also hope to be doing a few other non-ANE entries in the future. I'll let you know how that goes. :D

Everyone should check out Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. I can't stop watching it and singing along.

ANE: Intellect is Evil

Chapter 2, Ego: The Current State of Humanity

Even a stone, and more easily a flower or a bird, could show you the way back to God, to the Source, to yourself.

Yes and no. Putting aside "to the source, to yourself" part for the moment, I will go with yes, and here is Scriptural backing from Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

We can see God's invisibly qualities, such as his power and goodness, by understanding that He has made the world. So stone, flowers, birds can all point towards the good and loving God who made them. But God is separate from his creation. How can God be part of what he has created? God is ruler above all creation, so he couldn't be a part of it. So that is where I disagree when Tolle suggests that the creation can point back to the divine within us. God is not within humanity. It is true he is in the Christian from Galatians 3:26... 4:6,

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus... Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.

But this applies to those who put their faith in Christ Jesus. So then those who don't have their faith in Jesus, do not have the Holy Spirit, are not connected to God.

When you don't cover up the world with words and labels, a sense of the miraculous returns to your life that was lost a long time ago when humanity, instead of using thought, became possessed by thought.

I did a little experiment: I pondered my mobile phone. I looked at it and experienced some childlike wonder at the shape and it's purpose and so on. Is that the purpose for my life? To block out thoughts and walk around experiencing the sense of miraculous as I revel in childlike wonder? It seems almost, anti-intellectual. To give him credit, he does add a little later that,

we have to use words and thoughts. They have their own beauty - but do we need to be imprisoned in them?

but even if we are not imprisoned by them, he holds that,

the quicker you are in attaching verbal or mental labels to things, people or situations, the more shallow and lifeless your reality becomes, and the more deadened you become to reality.

So I return again to my assertions that he is almost anti-intellectual.

To sum up this block of text, I agree that there is more outside of the physical realm and things have being that exist despite our names and labels for them, he's a bit odd when he claims that names and labels are part of the problem. I think, using them and having proper boundaries on such things is good. It helps us in our relationships. It helps us express ourselves. Although, I think in the next section, he's going to be attacking our sense of self... or maybe he's already done that and will be elaborating.

ANE: Urgently Bringing About Heaven

Chapter 1: Part 6, The Urgency of Transformation and Part 7, A New Heaven and A New Earth

I don't understand where Tolle's sense of urgency comes from. He says,

The dysfunction of the egoic mind... is for the first time threatening the survival of the planet...
[and] humanity is faced with a stark choice: evolve or die.

but it may come from his belief that,

human life and human consciousness are intrinsically one with the life of the planet

and yet,

if the structures of the human mind remain unchanged, we will always end up re-creating fundamentally the same world, the same evils, the same dysfunction.

So I guess I'm at a loss to where the urgency is. Although evils are wrong and we should change that when we can, where is the urgency? Hopefully he will elaborate in his later chapters.


A short part I find amusing is when he says,

we are coming to the end not only of mythologies but also of ideologies and belief systems.

Which is ironic coming from a man with an ideology.


It is in this section that he helps define for us what this awakening looks like, it is,

the transcendence of thought, the newfound ability of rising above thought. ... You no longer derive you identity, your sense of who you are, from the incessant stream of thinking..."

I think, therefore I am, is completely out of the picture now. Being enlightened/awakened/saved is little more than an awareness of your meta-self. The self outside your thoughts and without thoughts. Pah! I like my thoughts. My thoughts are rather entertaining to myself and I think I'd be lonely without them (as anyone who knows me well, knows that I talk to myself quite often, mostly because no one else will *chuckle*)

Anyway, this entire chapter ends with Tolle's interpretation of Heaven;

heaven is not a location but refers to the inner realm of consciousness. This is the esoteric meaning of the work, and this is also its meaning in the teachings of Jesus. Earth, on the other hand, is the out manifestation in form. ... "A new heaven" is the emergence of the transformed state of human consciousness, and "a new earth" is its reflection in the physical realm

If it is the esoteric meaning of the word, how is this fundamental truth then at the core of all religions? And how did Tolle get his hands on it? And when was it Jesus' meaning? Anyway,

Although Heaven is not a physical location, it is also not in the inner realm of consciousness. Heaven is the residing place of God in the spiritual realm. The new heaven and new earth are yet to come, and humanity cannot bring it about. Bringing that about is the work of God.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. - 2 Peter 3:10-13

Also, the two are very different places,

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God - 1 Corinthians 15:50 and

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. - Revelations 21:1

The old must pass away before the new comes in. God must bring that about. Tolle's heaven is one that is emerging and that humans can achieve. This is not Biblical, this is not Christian.

And thus, I finish the first chapter. Hurrah! To end, I'd like to link you to this review done on the book. It's just the one article though. Not section by section as I have done... probably needlessly. *shrug* But I enjoy it.

ANE: Poor Victimised Spirituality

Chapter 1: Part 5, Spirituality and Religion

There are some very interesting topics in this part. Some I agree with, some I feel very obliged to defend myself against. He starts by saying "having a belief system... does not make you spiritual" which I agree with. But then he elaborates with "the more you make your thoughts (beliefs) into your identity, the more cut off you are from the spiritual dimension within yourself." I think he's wrong. He is suggesting that spirituality only comes with a denial of knowledge. He seems rather knowledgeable regarding his own beliefs that define his own personal spirituality, yet he is more spiritual than me. Well maybe he is, but I do not count that to my loss, because his version of spirituality is not something I want. However, I am "spiritual" in that I have a relationship with the Almighty God in Heaven, who is spirit; as Christian, the Holy Spirit is with me always; I died a spiritual death to self and sin... but none of this is done in ignorance.


Anyway, I want to defend myself against some pretty radical claims he makes.

Unless you believe (think) as they do, you are wrong in their eyes, and in the not-too-distant past, they would have felt justified in killing you for it.

That's quite a claim to make. I know that I have been angry and irritation and frustrated at various people whom I've argued with and disagreed with, but I have never, never wanted to kill them! That is so completely against Biblical teaching and law. I feel it necessary to defend myself here because I do believe that the Bible holds truth, and that if you do not believe it, then you are wrong on such matters as it covers. But I do not hold that against you. We do have free will and I acknowledge your rights to decide for yourself. Although a small number of friendships have gone sour because of this (as I perceive to be, fundamental) issue, there are so many more that haven't.

So then he goes on in his fashion for the rest of part 5 about how victimised spirituality is at the hands of the evil institutionalised religions - which in some cases, are regrettably true, but not to the extent that it seems he would have us believe.

That's all I really feel like getting into for this section. He makes a bunch of claims to support his spirituality which simply aren't true, but my beef was mostly with the one above.

ANE: Twisted Gnostic Christianity

Chapter 1: Part 4, The Arising New Consciousness

Tolle is making the same mistakes over and over again. In this first paragraph he set out by saying;

In Hindu teachings (and sometimes in Buddhism also), this transformation is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus, it is salvation, and in Buddhism, it is the end of suffering.

It bugs me that he's redefining the meanings of these words to fit his agenda. It bugs me even more that people are falling for it. These concepts are not the same. I would like to point out in Christianity, that we see suffering as necessary. It is not necessary to salvation, but if someone is a Christian and doesn't suffer, then something is wrong. Even Jesus suffered on the cross. "We also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us." Romans 5:3-5. I want Christians to see that suffering is normal, even expected in some cases. The end of suffering will either mean, 1) you're dead, 2) Jesus has returned or 3) you're too worldly and not Godly.

Tolle claims that "the world was not ready for them," that "their teachings... became distorted and misinterpreted, in some case even as they were recorded in writing by their disciples." He says "some of the teachers... came to be worshipped as gods." Tolle's God is not powerful. And I am amazed again, that Christians are swallowing this and still being called Christians, for they are not followers of Jesus anymore once believing this. Romans 5:6 says that "at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." God does not make mistakes with timing. He is omniscient and his timing is perfect, even though sometimes I do not understand it. Jesus admits that he is God's only Son, demons admit it and are terrified of him, just go here to see all the references to it and read for yourself. Furthermore, Jesus is also called "The Word" and "The Word of God." He was with God in the beginning and oversaw creation; John, chapter 1. Jesus is worshipped as God because he is. If Jesus were merely a perfect human, then his sacrifice on the cross can only count for one human (one lamb per person, re: Old Testament sacrificial system). As God, his sacrifice is infinite as so can count for the sins of the whole world. But then, Tolle's version of salvation is completely different, so why would Jesus be God under Tolle?

I'll skip a few underlined bits in this book because I've already touched on them earlier. I want to pick up at,

Man created "God" in his own image. The eternal, the infinite, and unnamable was reduced to a mental idol that you believe in and worship as "my god" and "our god."

Can you, my dear readers, see that this is what Tolle himself is doing? Redefining God to fit his own mental idea (image) of what God is like? He claims to be revealing the true God, but has nothing to back this up except twisted references to different religions. His argument is undone by having nothing solid to base this on. Even other references he has used that would otherwise be solid, he himself has undermined!! He then says,

in some cases an intensification of the light of the original teaching [developed]. This is how Gnosticism and mysticism come into existence in the early and medieval Christianity

According to him, the truer version of Christianity is Gnosticism! I am amazed that he was so brazen here. There is nothing in Tolle that is true. How can people read this as truth? Even without the Bible, his arguments are undone.

ANE: Inherent Missing the Point

Chapter 1: Part 3, Our Inherited Dysfunction

Most religions will all agree that there's something wrong with the world and that their way is the one trying to fix it. That what Christianity is on about - God bringing justice and mercy. Tolle goes through Hindu, Buddhism and Christianity and looks at maya, dukkha and sin respectively. Honestly, I don't have much problem with that except this: Tolle doesn't get the Biblical understanding of sin at all!

to sin means to miss the mark, as an archer who misses the target, so to sin means to miss the point of human existence.

NOOOO! Do not want!! That remark is so far off the mark! I don't know what Tolle's point of human existence is, but whether we reach it or not is not sin. I think the best verse to use here would be Romans 2:23, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Sin is falling short of God's glory. God has a standard that everyone should be adhering to, but all of us fail at it, and that is what sin is. It is falling short of God's glory.

But really, what is the point of our existence here in earth? When God created the world, he put Adam and Eve in the garden and told them to take care of it, and God ruled over them. I think that the Bible teaches that it's to live under him, taking care of creation. God has been reconciling creation to himself ever since sin entered the world. For Christians, we are to "make it [our] ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind [our] own business, and to work with your hands, just as you were told" and to "be joyful always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." (1 Thessalonians 4:11 and 5:16-18).

The book progresses with examples of the human dysfunction by using examples of war and insanity and our own observations; "we only need to watch the daily news..." and then we come to my final point in this section,

You do not become good by trying to be good, but by finding the goodness that is already within you, and allowing that goodness to emerge. But it can only emerge if something fundamental changes in your state of consciousness.

I actually agree with the first and last parts of that statement, but disagree with the middle and here's why; the Bible teaches original sin and the depravity of humanity. We cannot find goodness by looking within ourselves. We can only find it by looking outwards, to Jesus. Even though some/many things people do are good, they are still not good enough to reach the heights of God's glory. In fact, in comparison

The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.

All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. Psalm 14:2-3

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:21

Although I agree that "it can only emerge if something fundamental changes..." again, it's not a fundamental change that we can bring about ourselves, in our "state of consciousness." The change that brings about true goodness is the Holy Spirit that works within the heart of the Christian when they accept Christ into their hearts and love God.

You know, I don't think I was quite as dismissive of this chapter as the 2 before it. Maybe it's just because total depravity is finally some semblance of common ground. :P

ANE: Awakening Jesus!

Chapter 1, The Flowering of Human Consciouness. Part 2, The Purpose of this Book

Maybe I ought to give a more definitive purpose for my blog entries on this book, considering Tolle is kindly expressing his purpose to us.
People believe this book. Christians believe this book! I went on to the Oprah website and looked around on the forum boards for this book, and out of every 10 posts, one is about a Christian reconciling their "faith" to this book. That is not right! This book is not giving an accurate representation of Jesus, God or the Bible and it's making claims about them. Christians are falling for this pantheistic dribble and I cannot sit by and watch that happen. There ought to be a resource with evidence taken from the book and Bible about how they don't mesh and where it's gone wrong. This book sounds good and lovely, it wants people to be united and aware of everything around them and so live life to the full in this "awakened" point of view. That is certainly not Biblical. And so that is why I write this. To refute this book so that other's don't have to read such nonsense. But you can read it for yourself anyway and line it up with scripture. It just isn't true.

I really ripped into the first part, but I don't have quite so much for this bit, which is probably a good thing as I'm procrastinating from very important study here :D.

Tolle talks a bit about what it means to be awakened, but I cannot define it for you as "only by awakening can you know the true meaning of that word." So I wont tackle it until it comes up later (if it does). In the meantime, there are 2 things that I want to bring out here. The first is in the second paragraph,

The possibility of such a tranformation has been the central message of the great wisdom teachings of humankind. The messengers - Buddha, Jesus and others... were humanity's early flowers.

What? Did he just compare Buddha and Jesus? I think he did! I cannot grasp how people manage to get it into their heads that all religions are the same. They aren't. Buddhism teaches that enlightenment can come by careful meditation over many years, even lifetimes. Nirvana isn't heaven, it's a state of being, and then discontinuation of that being. There is no judgement in Buddhism, there is karma though.
The Bible on the other hand, teaches that bad things will always happen, even to good people (not karma), it teaches that God is most certainly alive and powerful and will come to judge humanity for their sins, and that salvation is achieved by trusting in Jesus - not by meditating, or doing anything really. These two religions are about as different as can be! Yet Tolle is comparing them and even saying that they share the same central message!

The central message of the Bible is reconciliation to God, which God achieved in Jesus. How many times must I repeat myself? On one hand it is good, because it's so easy to refute. Tolle misses the point of the Gospel again and again. On the other hand, I cannot believe that Christians are falling for this! I have Bible passages coming out of my ears, but here are three nice, succinct ones for you,

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 1 Timothy 1:15

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus 1 Timothy 2:5

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19

Tolle would then claim that "their message became so largely misunderstood and often greatly distorted" by us humans to refute me, but I am appalled at his arrogance! Blessed is he who knows which bits of the Bible to pick and choose from and he has now been able to graciously communicate the real and true message of the Gospel that was somehow missing all this time and not even in the Bible(!) If you're not going to believe all of it, why believe even some? Some of it may be true for some of you, but don't use it to back up your argument unless you're prepared to answer to all of it.

The second point that I want to draw out is when he says

This book's main purpose is not to add new information or beliefs to your mind or to try to convince you of anything, but to bring about a shift in consciousness, that is to say, to awaken.

Who's he kidding? He is totally adding new information in order to reconcile the religions of his choosing. He is adding new beliefs to your mind, the belief that everything is somehow connected by the spiritual realm, read: pantheism. He is trying to convince us of that in order to bring about an awakening and sell books. I do grant that he does say these are not his main reasons, but is that an acknowledgement that they are still secondary reasons? He is trying to get people to see that there is no reason to be critical of this book, because you don't need new beliefs to experience this shift (except for pantheism) and it's ok to be awakened and Christian(!) *cough*

ANE: The great pantheistic book!

Chapter 1, The Flowering of Human Consciouness. Part 1, Evocation

Alright, I intended on doing the first chapter, but there's just so much here already! I'll go through it as it's written.

Tolle starts off by bringing us imagery of the first flower ever blooming. He paints us a lovely picture of 14 million years ago just after sunrise. The flower blooms and eventually a "critical threshold was reached, and suddenly there would have been an explosion of colour and scent all over the planet." Flowers have a purpose and plants may have evolved because of that very purpose in pollination and so forth. However, a paragraph later, he is telling us that flowers are the first things humans value because they "had no utilitarian purpose for them." Except that they do have purpose! Again with the pollination purpose, we also eat them and make clothes out of them. Cotton is a from a flower right?

Tolle than makes the claim that "Jesus tells us to contemplate the flowers and learn from them how to live." He then compares Jesus' supposedly abstract lesson with the actual abstract lesson of The Buddha when he gives a silent sermon by holding up a flower and contemplating it. I mean come on, did Tolle even read Matthew 6:25-34 when Jesus gave this lesson on worrying? The point was not to reach enlightenment, as Tolle wants us to believe, but on trusting God to provide. Read for yourself right here,

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

This trust and providence comes when we "seek first his kingdom and his righteousness." Trusting God does not bring enlightenment. In fact, the Bible is not a book on enlightenment, but on salvation.

My next few underlined bits in the book all kinda come under the same heading, and that heading is, WTF!?
Tolle suggests that "we could look upon flowers as the enlightenment of plants" and that any "life-form" can "leap to an entirely different level of Being and, most importantly, a lessening of materiality." I don't understand how this happens. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a time, thinking that he could very well mean that our emotional responses to these objects of beauty, make them an enlightenment of plants for us. Except the next page he then says that "their special significance and the reason why humans feel such fascination for and affinity with them can be attributed to their ethereal quality." He admits that these things have ethereal qualities outside human perception of them! How is this?

He went on a little to include gems and precious stones as the enlightened form of rocks and birds as the enlightened reptiles. But all of these leads up to the great deceit of this whole book and that is here:

the one indwelling consciousness or spirit in every creature, every life-form... as one with [human's] own essence

He continues a bit more in this vein, that these enlightened forms draws us to "the realm of spirit," that they're "a window... into the formless," "a bridge between the world of the physical forms and the formless," "messengers from another realm." I think what he's getting at, is that these things attune us to the spiritual realm - whatever that is, he hasn't elaborated on yet. But this is certainly not Biblical. We know from Romans 1:20 that God's power can be known by creation. But that is knowing God is powerful because he created everything, not by being attuned to it! God is not a part of the plants or rocks. He is separate from his creation, he is entirely different from it.

I want to draw on this quote from the last paragraph.

...these "en-lightened" life-forms have played such an important part in the evolution of human consciousness since ancient times; ...a white bird, the dove, signifies the Holy Spirit in Christianity. They have been preparing ground for a more profound shift in planetary consciousness that is destined to take place... [yadda yadda]

I know I'm being very picky with wording here, but the dove is not the Holy Spirit, not does it signify Him within the Bible. I looked at multiple translations of Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10 and Luke 3:22 and they all say that the Spirit is like a dove descending on Jesus. The Holy Spirit is also like a tongue of flame, the wind blowing over the waters, etc etc. The dove imagery is used for one time in the Bible (recorded 3 times) when Jesus was baptised! That doesn't make the Holy Spirit a bird!

Furthermore, the second commandment as recorded in Exodus 20:4-5 is as such, ""You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them." Why, oh why then, would God make himself into an image of a dove to be worshipped? The Holy Spirit is not a dove. He can descend like a dove, he can be like tongues of fire, but he is neither, nor should he be represented by those symbols.

The last part of the quote though, hold most beef for me. God is not preparing the way for a "profound shift in planetary consciousness." God has brought Jesus to the world to die for the sins of humanity and reconcile us to himself. He is doing this even now and people around the world come to know and love him. That is the Gospel, that is the purpose God has for humanity, to be reconciled to him. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 says,

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

A New Earth

I've heard a bit of talk about this new book and had dismissed it outright and new age dribble. But as I am a little interested in new age dribble and how it presents itself, I picked up the book while in Borders this afternoon and read the first chapter. This chapter alone prompted me to buy the book, just so I could scribble all over it with my comments and criticisms.

I warn you, I am taking this book from a Biblical point of view and so I will not be very diplomatic. I find this book to be rather hilarious actually! But I am very interested in doing a series on it. Over the next long while, I will read a few pages/a chapter and publish all of my thoughts here. And so expect me to begin soon!

Dinosaurs Make No Sense!

Is it possible to draw a good and Godly conclusion on the literal nature of the first few chapters of Genesis? There are some people who are very literal, to the point of reading far too much into Genesis, and there are some people who insist that 7 day creation didn't happen at all, to the point that God didn't even have a hand in it. I don't want to go either way. I looked at a website earlier that was quite scary in it's representation, to the point of being scientifically inaccurate in the extreme and very badly researched, relying upon little more than cultural rumours (such as the kangaroo being the "Aboriginese" word for "I don't know"). How can I possibly take that seriously!?

I don't like dinosaurs. I think primarily because I don't know what to do with them. Where do they fit in the Bible? Literalists would have me believe that they walked with humans and were washed away in the Flood. Non literalists want me to believe that they happened sometime in between God creating the animals and God creating humans, and as a day doesn't equal day, that is possible.

I don't know what to do with dinosaurs! Even if I took the evolutionary side, I still wouldn't know what to do with them! Why did God (or evolution) create such massive beasts, so alien from what's around us now, only to be destroyed (and if you're an evolutionist, why didn't life now evolve into such large animals in the same way?)?

Dinosaurs make no sense!! I don't know where to put them or what to do with them. When I become a teacher, I will rely on other teachers to do dinosaurs. I will do other themes, such as the ocean, space, etc. But not dinosaurs!