Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

Announcements

DTW is Secure

Visitors

Translate blog:

Recent Comments

Author: Tom (Discerning the World)

THE SHACK – William Paul Young (Part 1)

The Shack

INTRODUCTION

Why are so many people who claim to be Christians so gullible and so much in awe of the movie The Shack? Are they real Christians who are easily led astray by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14) or are they Christians in name only who love to be entertained by tearjerker movies? (2 Timothy 3:1-8)

Assuming that a large number of those who have seen the movie and speak so highly of it are real Christians, would it adversely affect the meaning of Jesus’ words in John 10?

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. (John 10:1-5).

Jesus Christ was either deliriously confused when He said it or He must have forgotten what He really meant because there are scores of people claiming to be Christians who are indeed following strangers, are fleeing toward them instead of from them, and are obeying their voices instead of His.

Someone asked me to write an article on the movie The Shack by William Paul Young. At first, I was a little reluctant although I did not tell him so because I felt there were plenty of good videos and articles on the Internet exposing Young’s heretical teaching. Yet I did not want to rely on what many good blogs and websites have already written on him. So, I set out to write an article written in my mother tongue, Afrikaans, and e-mailed it to him. He, in turn, e-mailed it to some of his closest friends whom he thought needed to be warned against the very subtle nuances and shades of truth cleverly mixed with lies in the movie.

The response I received was overwhelmingly shocking, to say the least. One of them boldly stated, “If the enemy (Satan) had a hand in making this movie, I dare him to make more similar movies.” Others said in telegram style, “Beautiful” and “Love it” My mind immediately went to Isaiah 5:20 which says,

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20).

Where do people who call evil good and vice versa fit into Jesus’ words in John 10:1-5? Are they genuine Christians or tares whom the enemy has sown among the wheat? (Matthew 13:25-40). In total shock, I said to my wife, “When your friends and even your own family members speak about Jesus, you must make all the more sure to whom they are referring. Their conversations are filled with phrases about “Jesus this” and “Jesus that” but when you begin to ask some intrusive questions you quickly realize that they are talking about another Jesus and not the One of the Bible” (2 Corinthians 11:4).

No wonder Jesus once said, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14). (Emphasis added).

THE SHACK – THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

One of the most complex and puzzling things about man’s daily existence is the reality of evil. Where and when did this monster called “evil” begin to show its ugly head, is a question that has boggled the mind for centuries. In an effort to find an answer, several so-called models have seen the light.

The two most prominent models are Calvinism and Molinism. The latter, according to Wikipedia, is “named after the 16th Century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, and is a religious doctrine, which attempts to reconcile the providence of God with human free will. William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga, despite not being Roman Catholic, are some of its best-known advocates today, though other important Molinists include Alfred Freddoso and Thomas Flint. In basic terms, Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what His creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance.”

The purpose of this article is not to detail the pros and cons (if any) of these two models or any other. The main purpose is to show how human pain and suffering have escalated into an avenue to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ more palatable for those who find it difficult to accept it for its uncompromisingly rigid doctrines, the one being that anyone who dies in his sins cannot come where Jesus is, and consequently suffer an eternity in hell (John 8:21, 24). Suffice is to say that the movie, The Shack, attempts to deal with the reality of suffering.

An example of how the Gospel of Jesus Christ is deliberately being twisted to tickle the itching ears of the tares is that of Reverend Jannie Pelser of the Rand and Dal Community Church in Krugersdorp, South Africa, who made the following statement in a Good Friday sermon on TV.

“If Good Friday (a.k.a. the crucifixion of Jesus Christ) is so good, brothers and sisters, where do we see the goodness of Good Friday in our world?” . . . “What sense is there in the events surrounding the crucifixion if the world around us does not change and hasn’t changed for more than 2000 years? What does it help when the whole world goes to heaven but has hell on earth?” . . . “What merit is there in a faith that says ‘Hang in there’, some day it will be better? If we do not experience something of it [the Kingdom of God on earth] right now, who says the promise of a better future is at all true?” . . .

“I dare you to show me where Jesus commanded people to make sure they will go to heaven. Show me one place where Jesus commands us to make sure that people go to heaven. The command is to go and tell people that heaven has arrived on earth and that it is breaking through to every part of the world. And you and I, my, our calling is to set up the signs of God’s approaching glory on earth and not to focus peoples’ eyes on a pie in the sky when you die while the world around us goes lost in everyday’s struggle to exist.”  . . . “Jesus did not come to save peoples’ souls. He came to establish God’s rule on earth.”

As you may have noticed from the above quote, the Gospel (Good News) is no longer based on what happened on Good Friday, i.e. the full payment for our sins on a cruel cursed cross, but on the social change it allegedly had to bring about in the world via the inauguration of the KINGDOM OF GOD. It never happened then, and so now these new Apostolic charlatans have decided to do it themselves because God the Son failed to do so on the cross. Does this man know the voice of the Good Shepherd? If not, then he is not saved according to John 10:1-5 and should promptly repent of his evil before it is too late.

Imagine Jesus telling Lazarus who was laid at the gate of a rich man with festering sores licked by the dogs: “What sense is there in your faith that says ‘hang in there,’ some day it will be better? If you do not experience something of the Kingdom of God right now who says the promise of a better future [in heaven] is at all true? In any case, I did not come to save your soul because heaven is merely a pie in the sky when you die. I have come to establish my Father’s rule on earth. So hang in there, Lazarus. JUST HANG IN”

Please don’t imagine Jannie Pelser to be intelligently original because he’s not. The things he says about heaven and hell are merely an echo of what Rob Bell says in his book “Velvet Elvis.”

True spirituality then is not about escaping this world to some other place where we will live forever. A Christian is not someone who expects to spend forever in heaven there. A Christian is someone who anticipates spending forever here, in a new heaven that comes to earth. The goal isn’t escaping this world but making this world the kind of place God can come to. And God (the RCC’s Papa) is remaking us into the kind of people who can do this kind of work.

The remaking of this world is why Jesus’ first messages began with “T’shuva, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” The Hebrew word t’shuva means “to return.” Return to the people we were originally created to be. The people God is remaking us into. (Velvet Elvis,  p.151).

THE SHACK – A SYNOPSIS.

The movie begins with Willie telling the audience about Mackenzie “Mack” Philips’ early childhood. His father, an elder in their local church, is an alcoholic who abuses both Mack and his mother. Here the keen observer will already notice how cunningly the film maligns the biblical stance on child discipline. Mack attempts to poison his father with rat poison in his liquor, adding a note that perhaps one day he would be forgiven. Willie’s voice-over says, Pain has a way of twisting us up inside and making us do the unthinkable.The secrets we keep have a way of clawing their way to the surface.” It is particularly noteworthy how the emergent spirituality and especially universalism, which is forever trying to revisit, re-invent and re-interpret Biblical doctrine, has changed the biblical definition of sin into something we prefer to call “secrets” caused by pain and suffering that eventually claw their way to the surface, much like a serpent that suddenly pops up out of the blue, and forces us to do the unthinkable.

We are no longer predisposed to sin because “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9). We are blameless because we are pushed to a point of no return through pain and suffering, as the post-modern alternative for sin likes to tell us. Please bear this in mind when I deal with pain and suffering as a means the globalists and Universalists are using to hijack the Gospel of Jesus Christ later in this article.

Mack finds solace in the person of his neighbor, an African American woman, who later appears to be Papa (God the Father) whom Mack meets face to face in the Shack. She encourages him to speak to God (referring to herself, of course) because “he always listens” and promptly tells him, “Daddies aren’t supposed to do that to their kids; it ain’t love.”

Papa says this against the backdrop of a scene where Mack’s father mercilessly beats his son while a storm rages and forces him to quote Colossians 3:20, “Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.” You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how the author ever so delicately associates bodily abuse with biblical discipline and deliberately abuses (pun intended) the biblical mandate to discipline your children with a rod whenever they are disobedient. In fact, contrary to Papa’s “Daddies aren’t supposed to do that to their kids; it aint love,the Bible says the direct opposite, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son (and daughter): but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes [on occasion]. (Proverbs 13:24).

The Bible predicted many centuries ago that, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Thirty years later Mack and his wife, Nan, who allegedly knows God and calls him/her Papa are on a camping trip with their children, Josh, Kate and Missy. Mack doesn’t like the usual portrayal of God as an old man with a long white beard in glassed-stained windows, presumably because he was abused by his “Christian” dad who loved to drink in excess. Suddenly, the Philips family’s lives are torn apart when Mack’s daughter, Missy, is kidnapped and murdered by a child abuser. Although the movie does not depict Mack’s married life in full, we know that his daughter’s disappearance causes him to become somewhat estranged from his wife and kids. Then he receives a note from God to meet him in the shack where his daughter, Missy, was killed. To his surprise, he meets up with God or Papa, Yeshua, and Sarayu, the three persons of the Trinity.  According to Wikipedia

The Sarayu (also Sarju; Dev. सरयु saráyu- f., later Dev. सरयू sarayū-) is a river that flows through the Indian states of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. This river is of ancient significance, finding mentions in the Vedas and the Ramayana. The Sarayu forms at the confluence of the Karnali (or Ghaghara) and Mahakali (or Sharda) in Bahraich District. The Mahakali or Sharda forms the Indian-Nepalese border. Ayodhya is situated on the banks of river Sarayu. Some mapmakers[1] consider the Sarayu to be just a section of the lower Ghaghara River.

On Ram Navami, the festival that celebrates the birthday of Bhagwan Rama, thousands of people take a dip in the Sarayu River at Ayodhya. . . . The name is the feminine derivative of the Sanskrit root सर् sar “to flow”; as a masculine stem, saráyu- means “air, wind”, i.e. “that which is streaming”.

It is no surprise that William Paul Young chose a river in India to represent his (un)holy spirit in The Shack because it presumably portrays the attributes of its supposed Biblical counterpart in the Bible who is simultaneously the living water and the breath of life. In fact, Wikipedia emphatically states that “Sarayu is the name given to the personification of the Holy Spirit in “The Shack” created by American Novelist William P. Young.” The author’s love of Eastern Mysticism is quite clear.

Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu, depicting the three persons of the trinity, begin to interact and converse with him in diverse ways to address the deep spiritual wounds he received when he was abused by his father and Missy’s murder — first in the kitchen where Papa cooks, and then at the lake where Jesus fishes and also in his carpentry, and finally in Sarayu’s garden.

Incidentally, who would ever have thought that the Holy Spirit who is invisible to the naked eye would casually pop up on earth in the form of a woman wearing blue denim? “Cool!” is what some of the moviegoers would probably say. No wonder so many women attend church wearing blue jeans or denim. If Sarayu (allegedly the Holy Spirit in the flesh) can sport denim, why can’t today’s hippy women do the same when visiting their local church?

The ensuing scenes with Mack conversing with Papa, Jesus and Sarayu (“Breath of Wind”) respectively, and especially those things they teach Mack, prove that what we have here is “a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Proverbs 14:12). Mack meets “Jesus” in the woods, and after having pointed a gun at him because he may have thought that he was the serial killer, he follows him to The Shack and meets the three persons of the Trinity.

THE SHACK – THE BLACK MADONNA

The Black Pope

Are there two popes, one clad in white and the other in black, also known as the Black Pope, and are they both Jesuits? Are there two Madonnas, one white and one black or are they both the same person respectively representing the Pope in white and the Black Pope? The answer to these questions is a yes. Whereas the white Madona is called the Queen of heaven (Jeremiah 44:18, 19, 25), the Black Madona is known as the Queen of hell or the underground, blending good and evil in a kind of Yin-Yang fashion to “describe how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.” (Wikipedia). 

It is vital to know that the entire religious system of the RCC is shrouded in a cloud of hidden occult mystery. What you see on the surface is not what goes on in the depths of her soul. Henceforth the Biblical description “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” The word for “mystery” is “mustērion” and according to the Strong Dictionary it means “(to shut the mouth); a secret or “mystery” (through the idea of silence imposed by initiation into religious rites): – mystery.” 

Subliminal mind-control is part and parcel of this mystery, and the best and most powerful way to control peoples’ minds is to set up a huge hierarchical system of popes, priests, extra-biblical dogmas, iconic worship and visual grandeur (Vatican), and . . . . cloth them all in a shroud of MYSTERY. People are funny creatures. Anything remotely mysterious will always capture their adoration and respect. Jesus never intended his church to be governed and controlled by a self-appointed group of people.

But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45).

The Yin-Yang philosophy and Hegel’s dialectic of “Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis”  help us to understand the huge global effort all churches, denominations and other diverse religions are putting in to prove that as “seemingly contrary forces” they are “actually complementary, interconnected and interdependent.” Since the late Tony Palmer seduced Kenneth and Gloria Copeland and his church to climb into bed with the Roman Catholic Church, one harlot after another in the reformed circle of churches could hardly wait to jump into bed with “Mother” as well. (Revelation 17:5). Even on this very day (Mandela Day, 18th July 2017) delegates of the Reformed family of churches, including a delegation from South Africa, and the Roman Catholic Church convened in Wittenberg to sign an agreement to enhance church unity.

This is nothing new. The thrust for church unity has been going on for many years. Like Pope Francis (the Pope in white) the Black Pope, Jesuit Father Arturo Sosa Abascal, encouraged members of the Society of Jesus in October 2016 to “make the impossible possible”, and to make a meaningful contribution toward “reconciliation among human beings” and with God and creation.” He continued to say, “The kingdom of God cannot be present, cannot exist among us if we do not understand each other, if we do not recognise each other as people, if we do not try to have a situation in which the world can live in peace,” The Yin-Yang reconciliatory aspect of opposites and “seemingly contrary forces” will, at last, find its perfect niche in the Antichrist when he whose coming is now being hastened by Mother and her harlots, appears on the world scene. Then the two opposite forces peace” destruction” will blend into a perfect unity.

And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. (Daniel 8:25).

For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3).

Let us now continue with The Shack to see how MYSTERY BABYLON and subliminal mind-control are played out in the movie.

Papa or god in the form of an African American woman introduces herself as Elousia, a name which she says, she is particularly fond of. The name does not appear in the Bible and is probably a compound of “El” (God) and “ousia: which is a Platonic meaning of “being” and “existence.” On page 111 of the book, The Shack she describes herself as “the Creator God who is truly real and the ground of all beingor literally the substance or essence of all that exists. The Christian existentialist, Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was the first to refer to God as the “ground of all being,” meaning that “God is not a being, not even the highest of all beings; he is being itself, or the ground of being, the internal power or force that causes everything to exist.” (Erickson, Theology, 333).

On page 112 of the book, Elousia describes herself as “the Creator God who is truly real and the ground of all being.” This is nothing less than rampant pagan Panentheism which asserts that God is in all and all are in God, from whence Universalism, the notion that all people are eventually going to heaven, is a derivative. If God is in all and all are in God then all are part of God and therefore all are the eternal “I am.” When Mack asks them “So which one of you is . . .” they all answer in unison “I AM.” A visual observation is more powerful and has a greater impact on the mind of people than words in a book. What do moviegoers see on the screen? They see three human beings of flesh and blood affirming that they are the great I AM (God) and therefore you, the moviegoer, is also great I AM.

One of the most poignant scenes in the movie is where Mack and Papa have a conversation in the kitchen while she kneads a dough. Their conversation is one of the highlights in the film. Mack, visibly surprised, says to Papa “You’re wearing a dress.” She rather annoyingly asks him Excuse me?” as if to say “You should know better, especially with the horrible childhood experience you had with your abusive dad.” Mack always pictured God with a white beard. “Oh, that’s Santa,” she says and makes it plain that his (God the father’s) appearance as a woman in a dress was deliberate because she thought he wouldn’t be able to handle a father so well right now after what he had been through as a child. The reminiscence of his childhood days seems to trigger his “Pain [that] has a way of twisting him up inside and making him do the unthinkable” [and] “The secrets he keeps [which have] a way of clawing their way to the surface.”

He brusquely accuses Papa of not being there for him and his daughter when they needed her the most, despite her assurance that they (the Trinity) wanted to heal the wound that was growing inside of him. “The truth sets you free, MacKenzie. And the truth has a name. he’s over in the woodshed right now, covered in sawdust” Papa reminds him. In disgust, he says that he already knows that story and how she abandoned her son when he hung on the cross. He himself said so when he cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” No! Mack. You misunderstand the mystery,” she responds. With tears in her eyes, Papa takes one of Mack’s hands in hers and as she turns the palm of her right hand up to reveal a nail mark, she says, “Don’t ever think what my son chose to do, didn’t cost us both dearly. Love always leaves a mark. We were there together. I never left him. I never left him. I never left Missy.”

Papa’s statement “You misunderstand the mystery” and the nail prints in her wrists (stigmata) are very powerful allusions to Roman Catholicism’s Mother Mary who presumably is the co-Mediatrix and co- Redemptrix with her son. The plea among many Catholic bishops, priests, theologians and lay Catholic clergy to acknowledge her as the co-Redemptrix has consistently popped up throughout the centuries and is rapidly booming into a crescendo in these last days. One of the most recent pleas was aired by the International Marian Organization who asked Pope Francis to publically acknowledge Mary as co-Redemptrix with our Lord. The reasons they offer, are the following.

  1. Our Lady’s free decision to be Mother of Our Lord was the beginning of Her participation in Our Lord’s mission of salvation of the human race;
  2. Our Lady’s special participation in Our Lord’s work of redemption is only possible through His infinite merits, and does not detract from Christ’s redemptive work;
  3. Mention of the “woman” in Genesis 3:15 and Her “seed” is a foreshadowing of Our Lady’s victory over Satan and sin. The Immaculate Conception is preparation for Her to be perfect human partner with Our Lord; (The Catholic Douay Rheims Bible translates Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thy shall lie in wait for her heel.”)
  4. The Presentation reveals Our Lady’s continued mission of co-redeemer with Christ, culminating at Golgotha, where She interiorly unites Herself with Our Lord’s sufferings on the Cross;
  5. The Early Church concept of the “New Eve” is the first sign of the teaching of Our Lady as co-redeemer; Her title as “Redemptrix” to point to her suffering with Our Lord at Calvary (10th century); acknowledgment of Her being “co-crucified” with Our Lord (12th century); the “Co-Redemptrix” title (15th century); the “golden age” of Co-Redemptrix (17th century); the title of “Co-Redemptrix” applied by Pope Pius XI and Pope St. John Paul II (19th and 20th centuries);
  6. The prefix “co-” denotes “with” and not “equal.” No one can be placed on the level of the Divine, as such would be blasphemy; (If this were true, The infallible Pope should issue an ex cathedra statement that the translation of Genesis 3:15 in the Douay Rheims Bible is completely wrong, i..e. “she shall crush thy (Satan’s) head , and thy shall lie in wait for her heel The RCC must think we are complete idiots who believe that the word “co-“ merely denotes “with” and not “equal” when the Douay Rheims Bible clearly says it was she (Mary) who crushed Satan’s head. This could only have happened while nailed to and hanging on a cross, and being crushed (bruised) by God the Father Himself (Isaiah 53:10). The verse clearly says that it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and not she. To believe and say otherwise is in fact blasphemy.
  7. 2017 is the centenary of Our Lady’s apparitions at Fatima, “which in itself constitutes a powerful manifestation of Our Lady’s co-redemption in action.”

Moreover, Roman Catholicism denies the sufficiency of Jesus Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, asserting that the redeemed must suffer for their own sins here on earth and/or in purgatory. Several people who had seen the movie told me that the emotional impact of the film, embodied in Mack’s abuse by his alcoholic father and the brutal murder of his daughter Missy, was so overwhelmingly uppermost in their mind that they were prepared to overlook the many deceitfully twisted views of sound biblical doctrines (2 Timothy 4:3-4). One lady told me, “We know who the real Jesus and Holy Spirit are and therefore it matters very little how the movie portrays them. The storyline of Mack’s suffering makes the movie worthwhile.”

Few people seem to realize that the movie very subtly leads them down a beautiful garden path to meet the Black Madonna. One of her most ardent admirers is Matthew Fox who has written a noteworthy article explaining how she will impact the world in the 21st Century. The title of his article is, “The Return of the Black Madonna: A Sign of Our Times or How the Black Madonna Is Shaking Us Up for the Twenty-First Century.” The main feature of the article is summed up in these words,

The Black Madonna is Dark and calls us to the darkness (of suffering) . . Darkness is something we need to get used to again—the “Enlightenment” has deceived us into being afraid of the dark and distant from it. Light switches are illusory. They feed the notion that we can “master nature” (Descartes’ false promise) and overcome all darkness with a flick of our finger. Meister Eckhart observes that “the ground of the soul is dark. Thus, to avoid the darkness is to live superficially, cut off from one’s ground, one’s depth. The Black Madonna invites us into the dark and therefore into our depths. This is what the mystics call the “inside” of things, the essence of things. This is where Divinity lies. It is where the true self lies.

Fox continues to write, “The Black Madonna calls us to Grieve. The Black Madonna is the sorrowful mother, the mother who weeps tears for the suffering in the universe, the suffering in the world, the brokenness of our very vulnerable hearts.” He goes on to say, “To grieve is to enter what John of the Cross in the sixteenth century called the ‘dark night of the soul.’ We are instructed not to run from this dark night but to stay there to learn what darkness has to teach us.”

THE SHACK – ENTER SOPHIA

The word “darkness” frequently appears in The Shack and its most vivid metaphorical meaning to draw us into our own suffering and pain plays itself out in the scene where he meets Sophia (Wisdom – Chapter 9 “Here comes da judge” in the book) in a dark cave. Mack enters the cave with his hands outstretched, groping in the dark. The author amplifies the metaphorical meaning of darkness and Mack’s painful experiences with expressions like “deep shadows . . . inky blackness” . . . “dim light” . . . and “darkened room.”

As the heading of the chapter in the book indicates “Here comes da judge,” Mack was taken to the cave to teach him how not to be so judgmental of others. He had always judged everything and everyone from the clothes they wear to their body language, to their motives and actions, to the color of their skin. Now he was given the golden opportunity to not only judge people but to sit on Sophia’s judgment seat and . . . yes, to judge God himself.

At any rate, god was the culprit who set all the pain, suffering, terrorism, child abuse, murder, womens’ beatings, paedophilia, men who prey on little girls etc., etc., etc., into motion, Sophia declares unashamedly, because the legacy of suffering go all the way back to Adam. Please note, she deliberately only mentions Adam whilst Scripture clearly says it was the woman (Eve) who was in the transgression because she was the one who was deceived and not Adam (1 Timothy 2:14).

Don’t be surprised, because this is all part and parcel of the feminine agenda to overturn the God of the Bible’s order of things in marriages. Women are in the ascendancy and men are put down as deviant monsters who abuse their children to alleviate their own suffering they endured under the heavy abusive hands of their own fathers. According to one of the visions Sophia shows Mack in the cave, his father was also abused by his father. From whence does this upside-down, inside-out relationship between a man and his wife and their kids come?

In Matthew Fox’s book called “A New Reformation!” he writes that we are in fact confronted with two churches: one expressed by the image of the Punitive Father, personified by a rigidly hierarchical church structure, repression of the feminine, . . . and the other expressed by the feminine figure of Wisdom, personified by a Mother/Father God of justice and compassion. It is time for Christians to choose whom it will follow: an angry exclusionary god or the loving open path of wisdom (Emphasis added).

Again, it must be made clear that we don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that Sophia’s judgment of Mack’s judgmental attitude is a very subtle attack on the biblical command to judge all things (1 Corinthians 2:15, Amplified Bible). Of course we may not settle ourselves on the judgment seat of God and send people to hell who we think deserve to go there. We simply do not have the authority to do that because “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Terrorists, men who prey on little girls, serial killers, wife beaters etc. etc. etc. may all be saved by the grace of God whenever they confess their sins to God under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. No sin however monstrous and evil it may be, is unpardonable.

Mary Kassian a member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the founder of Girls Gone Wise has a thought provoking critique of The Shack written from a woman’s perspective. Said Kassian:

Sophia – The Feminine Christ crrucified

The Shack contains terribly wrong concepts about God. Plain and simple. If you think it doesn’t, then you’re well on your way to accepting the image of the Christa on the cross. In a few years, you’ll be hanging her up in your church. I don’t think I’m overstating the case. In my book I’ve carefully documented the way it happened in mainline churches. The arguments used to justify their feminist Christa are the same ones the Shack uses to justify its feminized version of God. In essence, there’s no difference between the artistic image of a feminized Jesus (a.k.a. “Sophia”) hanging on a cross and the artistic image of a feminized Aunt Jemima Papa god in a book. If the latter doesn’t offend you, then the former really shouldn’t.

THE SHACK – KUNDALINI (SERPENT ENERGY)

Egyptian goddess Isis

In his article on the Black Madonna (ISIS), Matthew Fox reminds his readers that she is calling us . . . .

  1. into DARKNESS.
  2. to COSMOLOGY(CREATION SPIRITUALITY in particular).
  3. down to our lower CHAKRAS.
  4. to our depths, to living spiritually and RADICALLY on this planet. (This sounds so much like the South African heretic, Stephan Joubert who wrote an equally heretical book he calls, “Jesus Radical, Righteous, Relevant (eBook): Kingdom, church and the world: Where do I fit in?”
  5. to our DIVINITY which is also our Creativity.
  6. to DIVERSITY.
  7. to GRIEVE.
  8. to our Divinity which is COMPASSION.
  9. To CELEBRATE and to Dance.
  10. to a RENAISSANCE OF CULTURE AND RELIGION.
  11. to reinvent EDUCATION AND ART.

The eleven things the return of the ancient Egyptian Goddess (Isis) or Black Madonna calls us into, may be transliterated as follows.

The Black Madonna (Papa in the The Shack) who is also known as the ancient Egyptian goddess Isis, and the Queen of hell or the Underworld . . . is “an immense force of protection, an immense alchemical power of transformation through both grief and joy, and an immense inspiration to compassionate service and action in the world” . . . “… that force of pure suffering [and] mystical love that annihilates evil at its root and engenders the Christ-child in the ground of the soul even as the world burns.” (Harvey, The Return of the Mother, 372f).

Papa (The Black Madonna) who is the epitome of the divine feminine and the essence of compassion, calls us to discover our own divinity (“I AM”-ness), by going deep down into our lower chakras where the serpent power (Kundalini) lies dormant. As she draws you ever deeper into the darkness of your soul and while you ultimately  experience the dark night of the soul (John of the Cross), enmeshed in your grief and suffering, and into the lowest levels of your chakras, illusions are shattered and the truth begins to emerge.

Then, when the Kundalini spirit rises upward, ever upward, mystical experiences of physical sensations, clairaudience, visions, brilliant lights, ecstasy, bliss, and the transcendence of self gently take you by the hand and lead you onto a dance floor of sheer celebration. Grief turns into ecstatic joy when you experience a supernatural relationship with the cosmos (cosmic consciousness) and realize that unity lies in the diversity of all religions. It is nothing short of a renaissance of culture and religion, a reinvention of education and art.

Many who have seen the movie will immediately argue that nothing of the above-mentioned phenomena are present in the movie. Indeed, you won’t find it so clearly defined in the movie. Most of the esoteric mysticism in the book is grossly watered down in the movie. However, the novel describes how Mack has a typical Kundalini experience in the darkness of a cave where he meets Sophia (Wisdom). Anyone who practices contemplative meditation, silence or stillness, as the Mosaïek Kerk of Johan Geyser and their cohorts (among them Stephan Joubert and Trevor Hudson) do, often experience the exact same phenomena described above.

On page 153 of the book, when Mack enters the dark cave and encounters Sophia sitting on her judgment throne and asks him “Do you understand why you are here?” it says that “Mack could almost feel her words (clairaudience) rain down on his head first (the 7th chakra) and melt into his spine (the 1st chakra), sending delicious tingles everywhere (the 2nd chakra). He shivered (physical sensations) and decided that he never wanted to speak again (transcendence of self). He only wanted her to talk (total bliss, “Ananda” in Hinduism) . . .”

The best way to arrive at honest answers is to ask straightforward questions. A piquant question we need to ask in our dissertation of The Shack is this: Why are so many people who claim to know Christ Jesus and actually believe they are truly saved so easily entrapped in the lies of the enemy? What triggers them to accept things that are blatantly anti-God and anti-Bible?

There is only a single answer. They have received the very same demonic spirit oozing its way throughout the movie— i.e. the Kundalini or serpent power that takes you on a journey of “the dark night of the soul” into false moods of joy and illumination. The next question is: When and where were the people who are in awe of the movie stricken with the Kundalini spirit? Here again, there is but one answer, i.e. when they were slain in the spirit.

William Branham and Paluser Lawrie Mathukrishna

When and how did the Kundalini spirit (serpent power) enter through the doors of the fast growing Latter Day Rain movement and the Charismatic churches in general? It happened when they began to speak in glowing terms of William Branham. Some of his most ardent admirers are Paul Cain, Paul Crouch, Marilyn Hickey, Earl Paulk, Oral Roberts, the late Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, Rodney Howard-Brown, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer etc. Meyer advocates peculiar and unbiblical manifestations at church gatherings and attributes them to the power of God. She says,

“ . . . you gotta come on out in the deep….Oh, I think that word’s anointed right now. Deeeep!!! Mmmmmm! One lady was in a conference recently in St. Louis, and she said ‘I am telling you, every time you said the word “deep” the fire of God hit me in the pit of my guts.’ (lower chakras). The lady, she kept falling out of her chair and being on the floor, you know? And she said later, ‘every time you said deeeeep it was like I just couldn’t stay in my chair!’” (Meyer, Go To The Upper Room and Wait (Audiotape 6).

William Branham was a spiritualist “healer” who believed spirits could be “imparted” (also known as “contact and transmission”) from one person to another via the laying on of hands. Contrary to sound biblical teaching that you should never allow anyone to willy-nilly lay hands on you (1 Timothy 5:22), the Kundalini spirit has been imparted to multitudes of people by the laying on of hands and then falling back when they were slain-in-the-spirit.

A genuine Christian who has the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16) will never, I repeat, NEVER visit a Hindu Ashram for spiritual guidance and instruction. William Branham was introduced to the Hindu-Shaktipat or Shakti force during a visit to Paluser Lawrie Mathukrishna’s ashram in India (see photo above). Wikipedia defines Shaktipat as follows:

Shaktipat or Śaktipāta (Sanskrit, from shakti – “(psychic) energy” – and pāta, “to fall”) refers in Hinduism to the conferring of spiritual “energy” upon one person by another. Shaktipat can be transmitted with a sacred word or mantra, or by a look, thought or touch – the last usually to the ajna chakra or third eye of the recipient.

William Branham introduced Shaktipat to the West in 1840 and it is still leisurely being disseminated through the unholy hands of his admirers whose names are mentioned above. What Branhamites deliberately overlook, is that their prophet, William Branham, believed that Lawrie Mathakrishna was the fulfillment of Christ’s Second Advent and even said so openly in some of his sermons, according to his followers. The following excerpt from Kurt Koch’s book “Occult ABC” confirms this.

The most remarkable messiah at the present time is to be found at camp Manujothi Ashram in the desert in South India. It is the extreme American evangelist, William Branham whom Christians have to thank for this false messiah. His name is Paluser Lawrie Mathukrishna. When Branham was on tour of India, Brother Lawrie became a disciple of his, and Branham described him as the Son of God and Christ returned. (Kurt Koch, Occult ABC, 1978, p.55-56). (Emphasis added).

The majority of people will never accept or heed the counsel of Christians who warns them against so-called Christian movies that very subtly promulgate Eastern mysticism and its extremely dangerous serpentine venom called Kundalini. Some of them even go so far as to say, ““If the enemy (Satan) had a hand in making this movie, I dare him to make more similar movies.” They are obviously heavily deceived and are disobeying Jesus Christ who said,

Take heed that no man deceive you. (Matthew 24:4b).

THE SHACK — SAVE YOURSELF AND OTHERS

Why would you condemn the scoundrels to hell who are instrumental in helping you find your inner divinity and true self through pain and suffering? Furthermore, why would you want those who cause you so much pain and suffering, including terrorists according to Sophia, to be cast into hell when your own suffering helps to save yourself and others? Could this be the reason why Mack’s father appeared to him in a vision of Paradise to beg his forgiveness, instead of in hell? Not even an abusive and alcoholic father deserves to be cast into hell because when he too is instrumental in his family’s salvation. Incredible? Farfetched? Mind-boggling? Fanciful? Not at all. Roman Catholics have always s believed that suffering “saints” can attribute to the salvation of the many who are suffering in Purgatory.

Gerardo De Caro had long conversations with Padre Pio in 1943. In his written notes he testifies:

“Padre Pio had an exact knowledge of the state of a soul after death, including the duration of the pain, until [it] reached total purification.”

One night in 1944 the friars heard loud voices coming from downstairs saying “Viva Padre Pio”. The superior Padre Raffaele da S. Elia a Pianisi told the doorkeeper Fra Gerardo da Deliceto to let those people out and lock the door properly. Fra Gerardo went downstairs, didn’t find anybody, and the door was double locked as it was supposed to.

He went back to report. Padre Raffaele was puzzled and went straight to Padre Pio asking if he knew something.

“Oh! Those were soldiers who had died on the battleground, and came to thank me for their salvation.” [Padre Pio frequently suffered stigmata in his hands, ostensibly indicating that his own suffering was a sign of empathy or identification with Christ’s suffering on the cross and consequently had salvific properties].

Yet, to the very end of his life and just like Pope John Paul II, Padre Pio never felt that his salvation was entirely secure. Towards the end of his life he asked his friend Pietro Cugino: “Tell me seriously. Do you think I will be saved?” How on earth could someone who had no assurance of his own salvation have believed that he had been instrumental in the salvation of others? How stupid, and yet an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics believe this thoroughly blasphemous nonsense. Here again, we may see how William P Young used pain and suffering within a family circle to express his own soteriological belief.

The brutal beatings Mack suffered at the hand of his abusive father and Papa’s comment Daddies aren’t supposed to do that to their kids; it aint love,is no coincidence. The movie is replete with metaphorically colored scenes, deliberately devised to guide viewers’ minds subliminally to the cross.

The scene where Mack’s dad mercilessly beats him on his back while a storm rages, as if he were some kind of African American slave in the 19th Century, is a subconscious or subliminal mind-juxtaposed scene, as I would like to call it, of Jesus Christ’s merciless beatings by the Roman legionnaires portrayed in the movie, “The Passion of the Christ.”

Immediately after the beating, viewers witness Mack mixing strychnine in his father’s liquor which leads to his death. Do you see the subliminal meaning behind it? A father’s beating of his son “aint love” but the son’s murder of his father supposedly is? Why does the author use these powerful juxtaposed metaphors in his novel and the movie? He cleverly uses them to convey his own view of soteriology which, in a nutshell, is that Jesus was made sin for us but his Father never punished Him on the cross in behalf of our sins, because “It aint love.”

In an interview Pastor Kandall Adams had with the author, William Paul Young on the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross, i.e. that He took the penalty for our sins on the cross, Young responded in the following way.

Adams: “On page 120 [of The Shack] where God says, you know, I don’t punish sin, sin is its own punishment, you know, this is when Mack . . . is having a hard time with his view of God pouring out wrath, etc. But then when it says, “Mackenzie, I don’t need to punish people for sin. I guess when people read the scripture my question is, doesn’t God . . . hasn’t God, and doesn’t He . . . punish sin?”

William Young: “Some of it is semantics, we’re dealing with the concept of the wrath of God and, and here’s an underlying question. “Do you believe that God does anything that is not motivated by love?”

Adams: “Well I think in scripture we have wrath, we have justice, we have mercy-”

Young: “I understand…but…”

Adams: “ . . . we do have love, so . . .”

Young: “Do you believe that God does anything that is not motivated by love, cuz love is his ontological character, it’s his being, justice is an activity of God, uh, wrath is an activity of God, so . . .”

Adams: “So you do believe though, that he does punish sin…”

Young: “I . . . I believe in the wrath of God, absolutely, but, but the wrath of God is, is always couched, the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodly (unclear word here) and unrighteousness of men, it’s not against the men, it’s against everything that is damaging them, hurting them, causing them to sin against each other, everything that is contrary to his nature, and . . . so . . .”

Adams: “But . . .”

Young “I . . . I absolutely believe in the wrath of God, yes, but I believe it’s motivated by love”

Adams: “But this love also, and just as you quoted, you know, you mentioned . . . the lake of fire, etc., it does say that there is torment day and night, so there is punishment, torment . . ”

Young: “Ya, and it, it is in the presence of the Lamb.”

Adams: “Here’s my question, if God doesn’t punish sin, what is the cross then, because if Jesus took our punishment on the cross, if he died for our sins, he was taking our punishment. If God doesn’t punish sin it seems like that demeans the whole concept of the cross.”

Young: “Oh, not at all. Look, the cross is, is the plan of God from before the foundation of the world, to redeem us back from being lost, being in the grip of our sin and lostness and idolatry and everything else, it’s absolutely essential. There’s no hope for any human being let alone the human race apart from the cross.”

Adams: “So you do believe that Christ was punished, then, for our sin.”

Young: “I believe that, that Christ became sin for us.”

Adams: “I mean that he was a sacrifice, that he was punished, he took…”

Young: “Uhuh . . . by who?”

Adams: “The Father.”

Young: “Why . . . why would the Father punish His son?”

Adams: “Because sin demanded justice, it, it demanded . . .”

Young: “Oh, it, but it, where was Father when the Son was on the cross?”

Adams: “In your book, when it says, um, Mack had a problem with ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ and God basically says, ‘Mack, I never left him’…”

Young: “That’s right.”

Adams: “When Jesus said ‘Why have you forsaken me?’ it . . . ”

Young: “Ya, he’s quoting, he’s also quoting and doing the cry of David in the Psalms, and in Psalms that’s totally reconciled within the Psalms. The next thing that he says, even though that’s exactly what he feels for the first time as a human being who was born of the spirit, baptized of the spirit, filled with the spirit, for the first time, he doesn’t sense the presence of the Father, and in that he cries out. But Paul the apostle comes up later, and Jesus first says, but into your hands I commit my spirit, so he’s still saying, you’re here. And Paul says, where was God the Father? For God the Father, 2 Cor. 5:19, was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them. So where was God the Father? You . . . and where did reconciliation happen? I believe it happened on the cross. And it says that God the Father was in His son reconciling the world to himself.”

Adams: “Ya, many see that as Christ being the agency of our reconciliation but that when, you know, that Christ was taking the wrath of God upon him, I, I take it that you wouldn’t, you wouldn’t agree that the cross was a place of punishment for our sin.”

Young: “No. I don’t, I am not a penal substitution . . . reformation . . . point of view.”

Adams: “But isn’t that the heart of the gospel? Is that the heart of the gospel?”

Young: “No! Ha, no! The heart of the gospel is that we are, are so pursued, the heart of the gospel is in Ephesians 1:5. He predestined us before the foundation of the world to be adopted as sons and everything is by, for and through Jesus, and when Jesus dies, all die, all die.”

Adams: “But all . . . all the sacrifices in the Old Testament, they were for the sins of the person, as they laid the hand on the lamb, or, or the Passover, you know the lamb’s blood was shed and put on the doorposts so when the death angel came it passed over, that way…”

Young: “And, and I understand uh, ya, I’m not saying that I don’t agree with some sense of substitutionary atonement.”

Adams: “But you disagree…”

Young: “But it’s way broader (muffled) than that.”

Adams: “But if you reject a penal substitution that Christ died as a penalty for our sins, it seems like that is the, that is the Christian faith.”

Young: “I don’t know if you’re aware, but that’s a huge debate that’s going on in theology right now within the evangelical community.”

Adams: “It is, and I, and I, and I would say everything hangs on that, I mean, there’s so many scriptures that Christ died for our sins, 1 Corinthians 15:3 . . .”

Young: “Oh, and, and I, I agree with that, I, he became sin for us..”

Adams: “No! He died for our sins. Romans said, the Father delivered him over for our sin. If he didn’t, if he wasn’t delivered for my sin . . .”

Young: “I’m not disagreeing with any of those passages at all, it’s just that how do we understand it? And how do we define what exactly took place? And I’m saying, that there is a huuuuuge amount of disagreement among theologians, about what all that means.”

Adams: “(O)Kay.”

Young: “And so there is, you know, a degree of ambiguity there. And . . ., what I’m saying everything that happened there, is the purpose of father, son and holy spirit, and that purpose is, our redemption, is salvation, reconciliation, and I don’t see . . . that it’s necessary to have the father . . . punish, in that sense, the son!”

Adams: “Ya, we could, this is, I think this is an important issue.”

A Carefully discerning Christian will immediately notice the very same hissing of the serpent in the garden of Eden when he posed the question, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Genesis 3:1). Satan who does not necessarily deny the veracity of Scripture and often uses it to his own advantage knows how to cast doubt in the minds of people. Like Satan, William Paul Young ingeniously admits that Jesus was made sin for us all but vociferously denies that is was God the Father who punished his Son on the cross for our sins instead of us. In fact, it is a blatant denial of what God reveals to us in Isaiah 53.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6).

In an article written by Dave Hunt on the movie The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson, which many Christians received with the same ardency as The Shack, he wrote the following.

One of the main problems with The Passion is that it promotes a false gospel. It gives the impression that Christ’s physical suffering is what saved us, because Catholicism emphasizes physical suffering, whether in this life or in purgatory. But whatever the Roman soldiers or any other sinful men did to Christ would never save anyone – that would only add to their condemnation.

Although we cannot fully comprehend what Jesus endured on the cross, the Scriptures make it clear that Jesus endured a spiritual suffering at the hands of God the Father as He hung on the cross: Isaiah 53:10 very clearly states that “it pleased The Lord to bruise Him…[the Lord made] His soul an offering for sin.”

So it was His soul which was made an offering for sin when it was “poured out….unto death” (Isaiah 53:12). This indicates that Hebrews 2:9 is obviously speaking of more than physical death when it states that Jesus “tast[ed] death for everyone”.

Although some have used Isaiah 53:5 to say that Jesus’ scourging is part of what saved us, the Hebrew word which was translated as “stripes” in Isaiah 53:5 (which is chabburah – or chaburah) is singular and not plural.

This indicates that Jesus received a single blow in punishment for our sins, which means that the Roman soldiers abuse of Christ could not have saved us (As portrayed in The Passion of the Christ)….but what saved us is that “it pleased the Lord to bruise Him” (Isaiah 53:10) when His soul was made an offering for sin.

On the other hand, if the Roman soldiers abuse of Christ is what saved us, this would have to mean that any of these sinful men who got saved have actually helped bring about their own salvation by torturing Christ! That is simply not rational, and it is certainly not biblical….but many people (including myself at one time) accept it because they are not carefully thinking it through. And I feel that many people have heard the Bible taught wrong for so long that they no longer grasp what it is saying regarding the penalty that Jesus paid for our sins.

As I have said, we cannot fully comprehend what Jesus endured on the cross, and I do not claim to fully comprehend it myself….but since Jesus became sin for us as 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, this means that he had to bare the curse of sin which was involved in that. I believe that this is revealed in this next verse…. 

Galatians 3:13 says, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”).

The verse which Paul quoted there is Deuteronomy 21:23, which says “he who is hanged is accursed of God”.

Once again, this verse fits the fact that Jesus endured a spiritual suffering at the hands of God the Father as He hung on the cross. That is the most significant suffering that He endured for our sins, and that is the suffering which is missed in The Passion of the Christ. Sadly, it also seems to be missed by most believers and professing believers today.

Instead of the truth as it is presented to us in Isaiah 53, William Paul Young believes that God the Father suffered with his Son on the cross. Hence the movie’s portrayal of Papa with nail prints in her wrists. William Paul Young and the RCC are obliged to portray God the Father as co-sufferer with his Son. If they hadn’t they could not possibly present the Madonna as co-Redemptrix with her Son.

As such, God the Father (Papa) and the Madonna (the Black Madonna) are ingeniously woven into one person in the movie, making both Papa (God the Father) and Mary (the Black Madonna) co-sufferers with their Son.

Jesus Christ suffered the pangs of hell on the cross on our behalf. When He said “I thirst” it was not merely a physical thirst for H2O but a spiritual thirst for the living water from which He was completely cut off as He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

It was the very same thirst the rich man in hell suffered when he pleaded with Abraham to send “Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” (Luke 16:24). Having been cut off completely from God’s living water is much worse than a literal fire. It is a spiritual flame that burns from the inside out and vice versa; i.e. an intense longing for the living water of God which will never be satisfied for all eternity. Had it been true that God the Father and Mary suffered with Jesus Christ on the cross as his co-sufferers, it follows that God Himself was cut off from his own living water while suffering the pangs of hell on the cross….

… continue to read the shocking conclusion in (Part 2)

3 comments to THE SHACK – William Paul Young (Part 1)

  • Pieter van der Walt

    Dankie vir hierdie artikel. Ek het so 5 jaar gelde die broek van vriendin gekry en begin lees. Vanaf die begin het n gevoel my oorspoel wat my baie ongemaklik laat voel het. Nie te min het ek voort gelees terwyl my gevoel van, hou op, al sterker geword het. Toe ek begin lees van die groot swart vrou wat se dat sy pappa is het die stem sterk deur gekom dat ek die boek moet toe maak. Ek doen toe so en toe daar daar n salige gevoel van verligting oor my. Ek het dadelik die boek terug gegee en berusting in my gemoed ervaar. Ek het aan my vriendin gese dat it godslastering is.

  • Hi Pieter Hi/

    Thank you for your comment. If it wasn’t for the Holy Spirit’s warnings in our lives, keeping us safe from harm, we would all be in big trouble.

  • Sheepdog

    Yes, so many are seduced by the deception of the apostasy in the church.
    Interestingly the devil is behind that movie.
    All of this apostasy, putting all the pieces together, shows what is going on
    and it’s all a yellow brick road leading to the one world religion under
    antichrist and all fulfillments of Revelation 13.

    Thank/

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

Terms and Conditions:terms and conditions

Because this world is becoming more evil by the minute and Discerning the World is coming under attack more often from people with some very nasty dispositions, we now have ‘Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments’ which you need to agree too before you can comment – this is to protect us and you when you comment on this website.  If you are not here to harm Discerning the World and it’s authors, please by all means comment, however if you are here to cause harm in any way, please don’t comment.

The following conditions does not mean that the authors of Discerning The World permit only opinions that are in agreement with us. This also does not mean that we fear dissenting opinions or ideas that are contrary to the beliefs that we hold (and/or that of the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible).

The following describes the Terms and Conditions applicable to your use of the “Comments” submission service at the Discerning the World website.

BY CLICKING THE “POST COMMENT” BUTTON FOR YOUR COMMENT, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ABIDE BY ALL OF THE RULES AND POLICIES SET FORTH HEREIN. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT TO DISCERNING THE WORLD WEB SITE.

  1. Discerning the World owns and operates the DiscerningtheWorld.com site (the “Site”). Your use of the features on the Site allowing for submission of a “Comment” is subject to the following terms and conditions (the “Terms”). Discerning the World may modify these Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised Terms on the Site. Your submission of a “Comment” to the Site following the modification of these Terms shall constitute your binding acceptance of and agreement to be bound by those modified Terms.
  2. By submitting a “Comment” you are accepting these Terms through your clicking of the “POST COMMENT” button.
  3. Discerning the World has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, at any time, and for any reason or no reason, without providing any prior notice:
    1. Restrict, suspend or terminate your ability to submit “Comments,” to the Site;
    2. Change, suspend or modify all or any part of the Site or the features thereof;
    3. Refuse or remove any material posted on, submitted to or communicated through the Site by you;
    4. Deactivate or delete any screen names, profiles or other information associated with you; or
    5. Alter, modify, discontinue or remove any comment off the Site.
  4. You agree that, when using or accessing the Site or any of the features thereof, you will not:
    1. Violate any applicable law or regulation;
    2. Interfere with or damage the Site, through hacking or any other means;
    3. Transmit or introduce to the Site or to other users thereof any viruses, cancel bots, Trojan horses, flood pings, denial of service attacks, or any other harmful code or processes;
    4. Transmit or submit harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, indecent, vulgar, lewd, violent, hateful or otherwise objectionable content or material;
    5. Transmit or submit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, or spam;
    6. Stalk or harass any user or visitor to the Site; or
    7. Use the content or information available on the Site for any improper purpose.
  5. You retain the Copyright of any “Comment” you submit to Discerning the World. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to grant Discerning the World a irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use the material or commentary that you have submitted, in any medium and in any manner that Discerning the World may, in its sole unfettered discretion, choose.
  6. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to comply with the following rules concerning such submissions:
    1.  You agree not to include in your “Comment”:
      1. Any false, defamatory, libelous, abusive, threatening, racially offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, harmful, vulgar, hateful, illegal, or otherwise objectionable content;
      2. Any content that may be seen as stalking or harassing of any other Site contributors;
      3. Any content that personally attacks an individual. (An example of a personal attack is posting negative comments about an individual in a way meant to demean that person. Note that posting your opinion about someone’s ideas, doctrine or actions is not a personal attack);
      4. Any content that discloses private details concerning any person, for eg., phone numbers that have not been made public, photos that are not in the public domain, residential address that is not public, ID numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses that are not in the public domain, etc.;
      5. Any content that you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent;
      6. Any use of profanity;
      7. Any content including advertisements or otherwise focused on the promotion of commercial events or businesses, or any request for or solicitation of money, goods, or services for private gain;
      8. Any content that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
      9. Any content directly or indirectly soliciting responses from minors (defined as anyone under 18 years of age).
  7. FAIR USE NOTICE:
    1. If any part of the “Comment” is not your original work, it is your responsibility to add the name of the third party, name the book with page number or a link (url) to the website where you obtained the information.
    2. Your “Comment” may contain Copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. You are however allowed to make such material available in your “Comment” in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
    3. If you wish to use copyrighted material from a website or any other medium for purposes to add to your “Comment” that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Fair Use means you may quote from copyrighted sources, but you may not publish the whole article, book, etc., in your “Comment”.)
  8. You are solely responsible for the “Comment” you upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available to others using this Web Site. Under no circumstances will Discerning the World be liable in any way for any “Comment” posted on or made available through this Site by you or any third party.
  9. You understand that all “Comments” on this Site are pre-screened or moderated. That means that every “Comment” needs to be approved by Discerning the World before it appears in the “Comments” section.  This is not an automatic process.  Discerning the World does this for SPAM reasons.
  10. Discerning the World has the right (but not the obligation) in their sole unfettered discretion to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or available through the Site. Without limiting the foregoing, Discerning the World has the right to remove any “Comment” that violates these Terms or is otherwise deemed objectionable by Discerning the World in its sole discretion.
  11. You understand that Discerning the World in their sole unfettered discretion is not obligated and can not be forced in any manner, be it legal or otherwise to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or made available through the Site by you.
  12. When submitting a “Comment,” you will be asked to provide your name and your email address. While Discerning the World does not object to your use of a pseudonym instead of your actual name, Discerning the World reserves the right, but not the obligation, to reject, change, disallow, or discontinue at any time any submission name that, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, is objectionable or inappropriate for any reason. Discerning the World requires the submission of your email address, but Discerning the World warrants that it will not publish your email address to an outside third party without your consent.
  13. Discerning the World does not sell or rent your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. From time to time, Discerning the World may contact you personally via email. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge and understand that the “Comments” feature of the Site is designed to permit users to post information and commentary for public review and comment and thus you hereby waive any expectation of privacy you may have concerning any likeness or information provided to the Site by you.
  14. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    1. Discerning the World shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor interactions utilizing the “Comments” facility of the Site, between you and other users of or visitors to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World, or any third party shall not be, and you shall not seek to hold them, responsible for any harm or damage whatsoever arising in connection with your interaction with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    2. Discerning the World does not verify any information posted to or communicated via the “Comments” sections of the Site by users and does not guarantee the proper use of such information by any party who may have access to the information. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World does not assume, and shall not have, any responsibility for the content of messages or other communications sent or received by users of the Site.
  15. The Site contains content created by or on behalf of Discerning the World as well as content provided by third parties.
    1. Discerning the World does not control, and makes no representations or warranties about, any third party content, including such content that may be accessible directly on the Site or through links from the Site to third party sites.
    2. You acknowledge that, by viewing the Site or communications transmitted through the Site, you may be exposed to third party content that is false, offensive or otherwise objectionable to you or others, and you agree that under no circumstances shall Discerning the World be liable in any way, under any theory, for any third party content.
    3. You acknowledge and agree that the Site, and the contents thereof, is proprietary to Discerning the World and is protected by copyright. You agree that you will not access or use the Site or any of the content thereof for any reason or purpose other than your personal, non-commercial use.
    4. You agree that you will not systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site by any means, and you will not compile a database or directory of information extracted from the Site.
    5. You agree that you will not reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the Site or any of the contents thereof without the express consent of Discerning the World.
    6. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Discerning the World, its affiliates and licensees, and all of their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) in connection with any claim arising out of your use of the Site or violation of any of these Terms.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

  • YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR FREE.
  • THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMLPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  • THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DISCERNING THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF USERS OF THE SITE OR THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE YOU THE COMMENTER.
  • IN NO EVENT WILL DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE SITE OR THESE TERMS.

16. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between Discerning the World and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede any previous oral or written agreement between us with respect to such subject matter.

Thank you!

Hi/
 
Hi/
Bye/
 
Bye/
Yes/
 
Yes/
Smile/
 
Smile/
Wink/
 
Wink/
Grin/
 
Grin/
Laugh/
 
Laugh/
Up/
 
Up/
Perfect/
 
Perfect/
Clap/
 
Clap/
Hi5/
 
Hi5/
Yahoo/
 
Yahoo/
Think/
 
Think/
Wait/
 
Wait/
Check/
 
Check/
Read/
 
Read/
Better/
 
Better/
Cry/
 
Cry/
Sorry/
 
Sorry/
Shock/
 
Shock/
Faint/
 
Faint/
Ohno/
 
Ohno/
Scratch/
 
Scratch/
Unsure/
 
Unsure/
Dazed/
 
Dazed/
Thank/
 
Thank/